Best for
- Complex software and services proposals
- MES, PLM, ERP, and integration opportunities
- Deals where configuration and customization are easily confused
Map each validated requirement to standard capability, configuration, integration, customization, partner dependency, unknown, or product gap before proposal scope hardens.
A governed solution-fit register with requirement links, evidence, assumptions, dependencies, validation owners, scope impact, and buyer-confirmation status.
Quick view
Check the audience, core tools, and access before you start the detailed steps.
Best for
Core tools
4 tools used across the workflow.
Access
Preview the open steps, then unlock the remaining implementation details and prompts.
Why this works
Solution risk becomes visible when every requirement is classified against current evidence and the team distinguishes standard capability from configuration, integration, customization, partner dependency, unknown, and genuine gap. The workflow prevents proposal language from converting assumptions into promises and assigns each unresolved item to a validation owner before commercial scope is approved.
Expected results
Requirement coverage
Every requirement classified or held
No requirement disappears between discovery and proposal drafting.
Assumption visibility
All material assumptions owned
Scope, integration, data, security, environment, and buyer dependencies receive owners and validation dates.
Gap governance
Product gaps separated from unknowns
The team avoids calling an unresearched question a gap or a gap a configuration task.
Proposal readiness
Explicit technical approval gate
Commercial scope cannot advance until high-impact fit and gap records are reviewed.
Step-by-step workflow
The first 2 steps are open. Pro unlocks the remaining steps, copy-paste prompts, pro tips, tool-by-tool setup guidance, and implementation details.
45-60 min
45-60 min
Use Airtable and Google Drive to set definitions for standard, configured, integrated, customized, partner-delivered, workaround, unknown, gap, and out-of-scope plus approval owners. Create or update the exact fields `fit_model_id`, `fit_class`, `definition`, `evidence_required`, `approval_role`, `scope_effect`, `pricing_effect`, `delivery_effect`, `review_cadence`, retaining the native account, opportunity, contact, site, program, requirement, and source IDs instead of matching on display names alone. Apply the operating rule that each fit class has a required evidence level and no seller can approve customization or product-gap commitments alone, and write every proposed change to a dated change log rather than replacing the prior approved value. Validate the work by testing ambiguous historical examples against definitions and authority rules; assign each warning or exception an owner, severity, due date, and evidence link, and hold records that fail the check. The completion gate is solution architecture, product, delivery, and sales leadership approving taxonomy; document the rollback or fallback path if the source is unavailable, the connector fails, or the buyer disputes the record.
An approved solution-fit taxonomy and authority matrix.
Use “unknown” aggressively; it is safer than prematurely labeling an item standard or a gap.
45-60 min
45-60 min
Use Claude and Google Drive to package product boundaries, fit rules, field dictionary, approved documentation index, examples, tests, and changelog in a reusable Skill. Create or update the exact fields `skill_name`, `folder_path`, `version`, `owner`, `backup_owner`, `instructions_file`, `field_dictionary`, `documentation_index`, `test_suite`, `changelog`, retaining the native account, opportunity, contact, site, program, requirement, and source IDs instead of matching on display names alone. Apply the operating rule that the folder contains `SKILL.md`, instructions, field dictionary, approved evidence index, tests, examples, and changelog with stable versioning, and write every proposed change to a dated change log rather than replacing the prior approved value. Validate the work by running regression tests on standard, integration, customization, unknown, and gap examples; assign each warning or exception an owner, severity, due date, and evidence link, and hold records that fail the check. The completion gate is the Skill owner and product or architecture approver releasing the version; document the rollback or fallback path if the source is unavailable, the connector fails, or the buyer disputes the record. Run this template in Claude within the approved solution-fit Claude Skill and opportunity Project after attaching the source records named for this step; store the returned JSON beside the source register before any downstream action. Maintain the Claude Project with `instructions.md`, `field-dictionary.json`, `source-register.csv`, `review-rubric.md`, `approved-examples.md`, and `changelog.md`; name releases `vYYYY.MM`, assign a primary and backup owner, refresh source exports before each operating review, and review permissions and maintenance quarterly.
A reusable solution-fit Skill with versioning, tests, and maintenance ownership.
Pro workflow preview
Previewing 2 of 13 steps
Get the remaining 11 steps, copy-paste prompts, pro tips, tool-by-tool setup guidance, and ongoing workflow and prompt releases.
$9/month
Update the Skill when product capability or delivery policy changes, not when one seller wants a favorable classification.
ROLE
You are the governed sales-execution analyst supporting a sales engineer or solution architect. You work inside the “Convert technical discovery into a solution-fit, gap, and assumption register” operating system, where source traceability, stable CRM identifiers, buyer-safe language, and human authority are more important than producing a polished but unsupported answer.
OBJECTIVE
Complete workflow step 2, “Create the versioned solution-fit Claude Skill,” and produce this operational outcome: A reusable solution-fit Skill with versioning, tests, and maintenance ownership. Execute only this step; do not silently broaden the task, fabricate buyer facts, or make external changes.
INPUTS
1. APPROVED SOURCE RECORDS: {{create_the_versioned_solution_fit_claude_skill_source_records}}
2. FIELD DICTIONARY AND ALLOWED VALUES: {{create_the_versioned_solution_fit_claude_skill_field_dictionary}}
3. ACCOUNT, OPPORTUNITY, OR PROGRAM CONTEXT: {{create_the_versioned_solution_fit_claude_skill_deal_context}}
4. OPERATING RULES, PERMISSIONS, AND APPROVAL MATRIX: {{create_the_versioned_solution_fit_claude_skill_operating_rules}}
5. PRIOR APPROVED VERSION OR CURRENT STATE: {{create_the_versioned_solution_fit_claude_skill_prior_state}}
6. DEADLINES, OWNERS, AND REVIEW CADENCE: {{create_the_versioned_solution_fit_claude_skill_approval_context}}
WORK TO PERFORM
1. Perform the exact job described by “Create the versioned solution-fit Claude Skill” using the supplied IDs and field names.
2. Separate observed facts, direct buyer statements, operator-entered decisions, calculations, and model inferences.
3. Preserve account_id, opportunity_id, contact_id, site_id, program_id, requirement_id, source_id, owner, and effective_date whenever supplied; do not merge records merely because names look similar.
4. Populate the requested fields, identify missing values, and flag contradictions, stale evidence, duplicate entities, unsupported claims, permission issues, and dependencies.
5. Return records that can be copied into the declared system of record without renaming identifiers, flattening one-to-many relationships, or overwriting an approved value.
6. Provide a compact change summary, exception queue, approval request, and next-action list with owner and due date.
7. Apply the step-specific instructions: package product boundaries, fit rules, field dictionary, approved documentation index, examples, tests, and changelog in a reusable Skill.
OUTPUT SCHEMA
Return valid JSON only with this exact top-level structure:
{
"workflow_slug": "technical-solution-fit-gap-assumption-register",
"step_number": 2,
"step_title": "Create the versioned solution-fit Claude Skill",
"run_status": "pass|warning|hold|fail",
"source_register": [{"source_id":"string","source_type":"string","captured_at":"ISO-8601|null","authoritative":true,"notes":"string|null"}],
"records": [{
"skill_name": "value|null",
"folder_path": "value|null",
"version": "value|null",
"owner": "value|null",
"backup_owner": "value|null",
"instructions_file": "value|null",
"field_dictionary": "value|null",
"documentation_index": "value|null",
"test_suite": "value|null",
"changelog": "value|null",
"evidence_source_ids": ["string"],
"confidence": "high|medium|low",
"review_status": "approved|needs-review|held"
}],
"exceptions": [{"record_id":"string|null","exception_type":"string","severity":"low|medium|high|critical","evidence":"string","owner":"string","required_action":"string"}],
"changes_from_prior_state": [{"record_id":"string","field":"string","prior_value":"value|null","proposed_value":"value|null","reason":"string","source_ids":["string"]}],
"review_summary": {"facts":["string"],"inferences":["string"],"open_questions":["string"],"next_actions":[{"action":"string","owner":"string","due_date":"YYYY-MM-DD|null"}]},
"qa": {"schema_valid":true,"ids_preserved":true,"evidence_complete":true,"human_approval_required":true}
}
GUARDRAILS
- Treat the supplied field dictionary, approval matrix, security policy, commercial rules, and prior approved state as binding.
- Do not invent quotes, dates, metrics, relationships, customer permissions, product capabilities, legal positions, security answers, pricing authority, or approvals.
- Do not perform, simulate, or claim an external write. Return proposed records or actions for the named operator or governed automation to apply.
- Do not collapse conflicting evidence into one confident statement. Preserve each source and route the conflict to the exception queue.
- Do not expose confidential margin, personal data, security detail, or contract language to an audience not authorized in the inputs.
- Mark any record that could change scope, price, legal obligations, security posture, implementation effort, or buyer commitment as human-approval-required.
EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS
- Every material claim must cite one or more supplied source_id values and include the source date when available.
- Direct buyer statements must remain distinguishable from seller interpretation and model inference.
- Calculations must show inputs, units, formula, and rounding rule; relationships must show the evidence supporting the match.
- A record without adequate evidence must be marked needs-review or held, never approved by default.
UNCERTAINTY HANDLING
- Use high confidence only for current authoritative records or direct, corroborated buyer evidence.
- Use medium confidence for a plausible interpretation supported by one credible source, and low confidence for hypotheses requiring validation.
- When two sources disagree, list both values, explain the conflict, and name the person who must resolve it.
- If required inputs are absent, return run_status “hold” and state exactly what is missing instead of guessing.
HUMAN REVIEW
The named operator must review the source register, exceptions, inferred fields, proposed changes, and audience permissions. Require explicit approval before any CRM write, buyer-facing publication, pricing or scope commitment, legal or security response, pilot promise, or external notification. Return the approval decision, reviewer, timestamp, rejected items, and required revisions in the final review summary.Related workflows
Continue with workflows that share a similar GTM motion, category, or tool stack.
An evidence-linked requirements traceability matrix that preserves who asked for what, how it will be accepted, what remains uncertain, and who must validate it.
A sequenced proof plan with stakeholder belief, proof method, evidence, owner, acceptance criterion, cost, dependency, decision milestone, and fallback.
A joint pilot charter with bounded scope, success metrics, responsibilities, governance, risk controls, acceptance, exit paths, and commercial next steps.