mutual-action-plan
Builds a mutual action plan (MAP) with shared milestones, named owners, and buffer-padded dates that drives a qualified deal from verbal intent to signature and go-live. Use when someone asks "build a mutual action plan for this deal", "how do I keep this deal from stalling", "the buyer said yes but nothing is moving", or once a prospect is qualified and has expressed intent to move forward. Do NOT use for preparing the qualification call itself - use discovery-call-prep instead. Do NOT use for scripting the negotiation and close conversation - use closer-sales-script instead.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-10-14
- Stars
- ★ 25
- Forks
- 3
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- mutual-action-plan
- metadata
- { "title": "Mutual Action Plan" }
- description
- Builds a mutual action plan (MAP) with shared milestones, named owners, and buffer-padded dates that drives a qualified deal from verbal intent to signature and go-live. Use when someone asks "build a mutual action plan for this deal", "how do I keep this deal from stalling", "the buyer said yes but nothing is moving", or once a prospect is qualified and has expressed intent to move forward. Do NOT use for preparing the qualification call itself - use discovery-call-prep instead. Do NOT use for scripting the negotiation and close conversation - use closer-sales-script instead.
03 SKILL.md 正文
Mutual Action Plan
A mutual action plan is a shared document that aligns buyer and seller on every step between "we want to move forward" and "the contract is signed and live." The word mutual matters: if the buyer has not contributed to and agreed on the plan, it is a vendor's wishlist, and the deal it was supposed to protect will stall in legal, procurement, or a budget cycle nobody mentioned. The costly mistake this skill prevents is discovering a six-week security review three weeks before the quarter ends.
Operating procedure
Steps run in this order because dates cannot be set before milestones are known, and milestones cannot be known before the buyer has contributed theirs.
Step 1: Gather inputs
Collect before drafting anything. Label guesses as guesses.
- Deal stage and evidence of intent - a MAP before clear evaluation intent is premature. Default assumption: qualified with verbal intent.
- Buyer's desired go-live date, or the business event driving urgency. If neither exists, that absence is a finding (see Step 3).
- Known buyer-side steps: security review, legal, procurement, budget approval, board sign-off. Default: unknown, to be elicited from the buyer.
- Deal size and cycle length. A sub-30-day, low-complexity deal gets the lightweight variant (see Escape hatch).
- Names or roles for owners on both sides.
Step 2: Introduce the MAP to the buyer
Introduce it only after the buyer has expressed clear intent to evaluate seriously - never on the first call. Framing: "A lot of our customers find it helpful to build a shared timeline so nothing gets stuck waiting on anyone. Would you be open to putting one together?" Present it as a coordination tool, never a closing tool; buyers who smell a closing device disengage from it.
Step 3: Anchor on the go-live date and work backward
Start from the buyer's desired go-live date and schedule backward. If the buyer has no date, ask: "Is there a business outcome or event this needs to be live before?" The answer either surfaces real urgency or reveals that urgency does not yet exist - in which case the MAP's first milestone is establishing the compelling event, not exchanging redlines.
Step 4: Build the milestone table
Use exactly these columns: milestone, owner (buyer or seller, by name or role), due date, status. Keep it in a shared document the buyer can edit - a MAP only the vendor can update is not mutual.
Seed with the typical mid-market SaaS milestones, then ask the buyer to add every step on their side the rep might not know about - budget approval cycles, procurement reviews, board sign-offs:
- Technical review / security questionnaire completed
- Legal review started
- Reference calls completed
- Final business case signed off internally
- Contract redlines exchanged
- Signatures collected
- Kickoff scheduled
Step 5: Date the milestones with buffer
Dating rules:
- Pad every third-party-dependent step by 50%: if legal typically takes two weeks, put three on the plan. Slipping a MAP date by a day looks sloppy; finishing early is fine.
- Every milestone gets a single named owner. "Both teams" is not an owner - split the milestone until each piece has one name.
- No two consecutive milestones due on the same date; sequence forces honesty about dependencies.
- The gap between signature and go-live must reflect real onboarding time, not zero.
- Confirm each buyer-side date with the buyer out loud. A date the buyer never agreed to is a seller fantasy.
Step 6: Keep it alive
Open every subsequent call with the MAP: "Before we dive in, let me pull up our plan - we have three items due this week." This maintains momentum and makes silent slippage uncomfortable. When a milestone slips, update the date and record why in the status column. A MAP showing perfect on-time completion is a red flag that nobody is tracking honestly.
Template: MAP skeleton
MUTUAL ACTION PLAN - [FILL: buyer company] + [FILL: seller company]
Target go-live: [FILL: date] Driving event: [FILL: business outcome/event, or "none identified - establish"]
Shared doc, editable by both sides. Reviewed at the start of every call.
| # | Milestone | Owner (name/role) | Due date | Status / notes |
|---|----------------------------------------------|-----------------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | Success criteria for evaluation agreed | [FILL: buyer name] | [FILL] | |
| 2 | Technical review / security questionnaire done| [FILL: buyer name] | [FILL] | |
| 3 | Reference calls completed | [FILL: seller name] | [FILL] | |
| 4 | Business case signed off internally | [FILL: buyer name] | [FILL] | |
| 5 | [FILL: buyer-added step, e.g. procurement] | [FILL] | [FILL] | |
| 6 | Legal review started | [FILL: buyer name] | [FILL] | |
| 7 | Contract redlines exchanged | both - split: [FILL] | [FILL] | |
| 8 | Signatures collected | [FILL] | [FILL] | |
| 9 | Kickoff scheduled | [FILL: seller name] | [FILL] | |
Slipped items log: [date, milestone, reason, new date]
Bad date-setting: "Legal review - Owner: both teams - Due: end of month." No single owner, no buffer, a vague date nobody committed to.
Good date-setting: "Legal review started - Owner: Dana Reyes (buyer, legal ops) - Due: May 9 (typical turnaround 2 weeks; padded to 3). Confirmed with Dana on the Apr 14 call."
Deliverable
Produce a shared MAP document containing the target go-live date and driving event, a milestone table with single named owners and buffer-padded dates for every row, buyer-contributed milestones explicitly included, and a slipped-items log - plus the introduction framing script and the standing agenda line for reviewing it each call.
Do NOT
- Do not introduce the MAP on the first call - before intent exists it reads as pushy process and gets ignored.
- Do not build the MAP alone and send it for signature; a plan the buyer did not shape carries no buyer accountability.
- Do not set dates without buffer - one publicly slipped date erodes the plan's authority for every date after it.
- Do not assign milestones to "both teams"; diffuse ownership is how milestones silently die.
- Do not treat a fully green MAP as good news without checking - perfect status usually means it stopped being tracked.
- Do not use the MAP to pressure-close ("per our plan, you owe me a signature Friday"); it is a coordination instrument, and weaponizing it destroys the mutuality that makes it work.
Quality bar
Ship only when: every milestone has one named owner and a dated deadline; buyer-side steps came from the buyer's mouth, not the rep's assumptions; third-party steps carry 50% buffer; the go-live date traces to a business event or the plan's first milestone is finding one; the document lives somewhere the buyer can edit; and the rep has a standing habit of opening calls with it.
Escape hatch
For a simple or short-cycle deal (under 30 days, no procurement or security review), skip the table: send a bullet list in the follow-up email - three to five actions, one owner each, one deadline each. The goal is shared accountability, not administrative overhead. If the deal keeps stalling despite a healthy MAP, the problem is usually qualification, not coordination - revisit with discovery-call-prep.
04 同仓库更多 Skills
有氧运动计划
zone-2-cardio-plan
当有人要求制定稳态有氧训练计划、进行有氧基础训练或达到第二区间、安排轻松或耐力型的每周有氧训练、按心率区间训练,或提高静息心率、最大摄氧量或耐力时,可以使用此方案。该方案构建了一个包含训练计划结构、训练方式选择和进度安排的心率区间有氧训练模块。本方案仅提供一般健身指导,不构成医疗建议。请勿用于设计力量或举重训练计划(请使用力量训练计划)、高强度间歇训练 (HIIT) 或循环训练(请使用体能训练和 HIIT 计划),或灵活性/柔韧性训练(请使用灵活性训练计划)。
youtube-script-writer
Writes retention-engineered long-form YouTube scripts on a hook/body/payoff architecture - a first-30-seconds hook that survives the retention cliff, a beat-sheet body with mini-hooks and bridges, timed pattern interrupts, and a payoff that over-delivers - with B-roll and editing cues marked inline. Use when someone says "script my next video", "my retention graph dies at the start", "tighten this draft", or "outline a video on X". Do NOT use for the 3-second opener of TikTok, Reels, or Shorts - use video-hook-writer instead; do NOT use for spoken voiceover synced to on-screen tutorial actions - use narration-script instead; do NOT use for a sales demo built on a buyer's discovery notes - use demo-script instead; do NOT use to design the thumbnail and title - use thumbnail-concept instead.
win-back-campaign
Designs segmented win-back email sequences for dormant users - dormancy tiers, a three-beat sequence with a single proportional incentive, and a suppression rule - and measures success by re-activation, not opens. Use when someone says "our users went quiet", "design a win-back campaign", "how do I re-engage lapsed customers", "should we email people who haven't logged in for months", or lifecycle messaging has stopped landing with a lapsed segment. Do NOT use for recovering an unfinished checkout - use abandoned-cart-sequence instead. Do NOT use for diagnosing and fixing why active customers cancel - use churn-reduction instead. Do NOT use for building always-on onboarding or nurture flows - use email-drip-builder instead.
wikipedia-style
Writes neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic prose following Wikipedia's core content policies and manual of style - NPOV, inline citations, notability-backed claims, and a strict ban on promotional language. Use when someone asks "write this like a Wikipedia article", "draft a Wikipedia page for this company or person", "make this neutral and encyclopedic", or "why does my article draft keep getting rejected". Do NOT use for persuasive or opinion writing - use op-ed-writer instead; for thesis-driven academic papers, use academic-essay; for verifying claims in existing text, use fact-checker.
whitepapers
Structures and writes authoritative B2B whitepapers - a standalone executive summary, a data-sized problem statement, methodology, evidence-driven findings, recommendations, and a soft call to action - flagging every claim that needs a real citation. Use when a marketer asks "write a whitepaper on this topic", "turn our research into a lead-gen asset", "make this credible enough for executives", or a draft reads like a product pitch instead of analysis. Do NOT use for customer-story-driven proof - use case-study-builder instead; for policy audiences, use policy-brief.
white-space-analysis
Finds unmet market gaps by ranking jobs-to-be-done on importance versus satisfaction, overlaying them against current solutions and workarounds, and validating that each gap is real, winnable, and worth winning. Use when someone asks "where are the gaps in this market", "what's underserved here", "where should we play next", or is hunting for product, feature, or market-entry opportunities. Do NOT use for profiling competitors and building battle cards - use competitive-intelligence instead; for putting a dollar figure on an identified opportunity - use market-sizing instead; for extracting jobs-to-be-done from raw customer interviews - use jtbd-extractor instead.