Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

meddic-scorecard(医疗记分卡)

meddic-scorecard 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

meddic-scorecard 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 36,263。

总安装 1,953周安装 79GitHub Stars 85下载 613核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:meddic-scorecard(医疗记分卡)
来源仓库:https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills
仓库路径:skills/meddic-scorecard
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills --skill meddic-scorecard
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills --skill meddic-scorecard

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

meddic-scorecard 用于医疗领域的评分卡构建与信息检索,支持在多种宿主环境中快速获取相关数据。适用于医疗指标评估、数据来源筛选及任务导向的信息聚合。通过 npx skills add 命令从 clawfu-skills 仓库安装使用。需注意权限控制、网络访问限制及潜在的文件系统操作风险。

建议查阅原始文档以明确评分逻辑和使用范围。

来源仓库内路径:skills/meddic-scorecard

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills --skill meddic-sco…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

meddic-scorecard 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills --skill meddic-scorecard。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

meddic-scorecard 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

meddic-scorecard 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

meddic-scorecard 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

meddic-scorecard 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,953 次,近一周安装 79 次,下载 613 次,GitHub 85 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

meddic-scorecard 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
meddic-scorecard

医疗记分卡 · 本页

1,95385只读未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

MEDDIC Scorecard

Build systematic deal scorecards using MEDDIC/MEDDPICC methodology to improve pipeline hygiene, forecast accuracy, and coaching effectiveness.

When to Use This Skill

  • Weekly pipeline reviews
  • Deal coaching sessions
  • Forecast call preparation
  • Win/loss analysis
  • Sales enablement training

Methodology Foundation

Based on PTC's MEDDIC (Dick Dunkel) extended to MEDDPICC, creating standardized scorecards for:

  • Deal qualification scoring
  • Gap identification
  • Coaching prioritization
  • Forecast confidence

What Claude Does vs What You Decide

Claude DoesYou Decide
Creates scorecard templatesDeal stage thresholds
Suggests scoring criteriaCoaching priorities
Identifies deal gapsForecast commits
Generates coaching questionsResource allocation
Tracks deal progressionWin strategy

Instructions

Step 1: Define Scoring Criteria

MEDDPICC Components:

ComponentDefinitionScoring Weight
MetricsQuantified business outcomes15%
Economic BuyerBudget authority identified15%
Decision CriteriaHow they'll evaluate10%
Decision ProcessSteps to purchase10%
Paper ProcessLegal/procurement10%
Identify PainBusiness problem articulated15%
ChampionInternal advocate confirmed15%
CompetitionCompetitive landscape known10%

Step 2: Create Scoring Rubric

Per-Component Scoring (0-3):

ScoreDefinitionEvidence Required
0UnknownNo information gathered
1IdentifiedBasic information, not verified
2ValidatedConfirmed with prospect
3LeveragedActively using in deal strategy

Step 3: Build Stage Gates

Stage-Score Alignment:

StageMinimum ScoreRequired 3s
Discovery8/24Pain
Qualification12/24Pain, Champion
Demo/Evaluation16/24Pain, Champion, Criteria
Proposal18/24+ Economic Buyer
Negotiation21/24+ Paper Process
Commit22/24All components validated

Step 4: Track and Coach

Weekly Review Focus:

  • Deals below stage threshold
  • Score changes (positive/negative)
  • Gaps in critical components
  • Champion health check
  • Competition updates

Step 5: Analyze Patterns

Pipeline Health Metrics:

  • Average score by stage
  • Conversion rates by score threshold
  • Most common gaps
  • Champion strength correlation

Examples

Example 1: Complete Deal Scorecard

Input:

Create a MEDDPICC scorecard for:
- Deal: Enterprise software sale, $400K
- Stage: Proposal
- Champion: VP of Operations
- EB: CFO (not met)
- Timeline: Q1 close

Output:

## MEDDPICC Deal Scorecard

### Deal Overview

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Account | [Customer Name] |
| Opportunity | Enterprise Platform |
| Value | $400,000 ARR |
| Stage | Proposal |
| Close Date | Q1 (March 30) |
| AE | [Name] |
| Last Updated | [Date] |

---

### Score Summary

**Total Score: 16/24** | Stage Requirement: 18/24

| Component | Score | Stage Req | Status |
|-----------|-------|-----------|--------|
| Metrics | 2/3 | 2 | ✅ |
| Economic Buyer | 1/3 | **3** | ❌ GAP |
| Decision Criteria | 3/3 | 2 | ✅ |
| Decision Process | 2/3 | 2 | ✅ |
| Paper Process | 1/3 | 2 | ⚠️ GAP |
| Identify Pain | 3/3 | 3 | ✅ |
| Champion | 3/3 | 3 | ✅ |
| Competition | 1/3 | 2 | ⚠️ GAP |

**Status: NOT READY FOR PROPOSAL** - 3 gaps to address

---

### Component Details

#### Metrics (2/3) ✅ On Track

**Current State:**
- ROI target: 3x in Year 1 ✓
- Primary KPI: Reduce processing time 40% ✓
- CFO business case: Not yet presented ✗

**Evidence:**
> "If we hit 40% reduction, that's $1.2M in operational savings"
> — VP Operations, Discovery Call

**To reach 3/3:**
- [ ] Present business case to CFO
- [ ] Get CFO to validate assumptions

---

#### Economic Buyer (1/3) ❌ CRITICAL GAP

**Current State:**
- EB Identified: CFO Jennifer Walsh ✓
- Access: Email only, no meeting ✗
- Engagement: Unknown priorities ✗

**Gap Analysis:**
We have not met the Economic Buyer. This is a **deal blocker**
for Proposal stage. Champion (VP Ops) reports to CFO but has
not secured meeting.

**Action Required:**
- [ ] Ask Champion for CFO meeting this week
- [ ] Prepare executive briefing deck
- [ ] Identify CFO's priorities for Q1

**Coaching Questions:**
1. "What's preventing us from meeting the CFO?"
2. "What does your champion say about CFO's priorities?"
3. "Can we propose a joint call with champion + CFO?"

---

#### Decision Criteria (3/3) ✅ Strong

**Current State:**
- Formal criteria documented ✓
- Weighted by priority ✓
- Aligned with our strengths ✓

**Evidence:**
| Criterion | Weight | Our Fit |
|-----------|--------|---------|
| Integration depth | 30% | Strong |
| Time to value | 25% | Strong |
| Total cost | 20% | Medium |
| Support | 15% | Strong |
| References | 10% | Strong |

---

#### Decision Process (2/3) ⚠️ Needs Validation

**Current State:**
- Steps identified ✓
- Timeline mapped ✓
- Approvers known ✓
- Specific dates: Partial ✗

**Process Map:**

Step 1: Technical evaluation ✅ Complete Step 2: Business review ✅ Complete Step 3: Proposal review ⏳ This week Step 4: CFO approval ⏳ [Date TBD] Step 5: Legal/Procurement ⏳ [Timeline unknown] Step 6: Signature ⏳ Target: March 30

**To reach 3/3:**
- [ ] Confirm CFO meeting date
- [ ] Map procurement timeline
- [ ] Identify potential delays

---

#### Paper Process (1/3) ⚠️ GAP

**Current State:**
- Legal review required: Likely ✓
- Timeline: Unknown ✗
- Procurement contact: Not identified ✗
- Standard terms acceptable: Unknown ✗

**Risk Assessment:**
Paper process is a common source of deal slip at this stage.
Unknown timeline creates forecast risk.

**Action Required:**
- [ ] Ask champion about procurement process
- [ ] Identify legal/procurement contacts
- [ ] Offer to start MSA review early

---

#### Identify Pain (3/3) ✅ Strong

**Current State:**
- Pain articulated ✓
- Quantified impact ✓
- Urgency established ✓
- Consequences of inaction clear ✓

**Pain Statement:**
> "Manual processing is costing us 8,000 hours/year. We've
> missed SLAs 3 times this quarter. If we don't fix this,
> we'll lose the [Major Customer] contract."

**Business Impact:**
- 8,000 hours × $50/hr = $400K labor cost
- SLA penalties: $200K potential
- Customer retention risk: $2M contract

---

#### Champion (3/3) ✅ Strong

**Champion Profile:**
| Attribute | Assessment |
|-----------|------------|
| Name | Michael Chen, VP Operations |
| Access | Reports to CFO |
| Influence | High - owns the budget |
| Motivation | Personal - promoted if successful |
| Engagement | Weekly calls, sharing internally |

**Champion Test:**
- ✅ Sells when we're not in the room
- ✅ Shares competitive intel
- ✅ Gives us bad news
- ⚠️ Has not secured CFO meeting yet

---

#### Competition (1/3) ⚠️ GAP

**Current State:**
- Competitors identified: 1 known ✓
- Their status: Unknown ✗
- Their approach: Unknown ✗
- Our differentiation: Assumed ✗

**Known Information:**
- Competitor X was evaluated
- Champion said "we've narrowed to two"
- No pricing or proposal intel

**Action Required:**
- [ ] Ask champion directly about competitor status
- [ ] Understand competitor's proposal/pricing
- [ ] Prepare competitive positioning

---

### Gap Resolution Plan

| Gap | Priority | Action | Owner | Due |
|-----|----------|--------|-------|-----|
| Economic Buyer | P1 | Request CFO meeting | AE + Champion | This week |
| Competition | P2 | Discovery with champion | AE | Day 2 |
| Paper Process | P2 | Map procurement timeline | AE | Day 3 |

---

### Coaching Summary

**Primary Focus:** Get in front of CFO before sending proposal

**Key Questions to Ask in 1:1:**
1. Why haven't we met the Economic Buyer yet?
2. What do we actually know about the competition?
3. What could cause this deal to slip past Q1?

**Forecast Recommendation:**
- Current: In forecast at 50%
- Recommendation: Keep at 50% until CFO meeting secured
- Path to 80%: EB meeting + Competition clarity + Paper process mapped

Example 2: Pipeline Review Summary

Input:

Summarize MEDDPICC health for these 5 deals:
1. Deal A: 22/24 (Commit stage)
2. Deal B: 14/24 (Proposal stage)
3. Deal C: 18/24 (Demo stage)
4. Deal D: 10/24 (Qualification stage)
5. Deal E: 16/24 (Negotiation stage)

Output:

## Pipeline MEDDPICC Health Summary

### Overview

| Deal | Stage | Score | Req'd | Status |
|------|-------|-------|-------|--------|
| Deal A | Commit | 22/24 | 22 | ✅ On track |
| Deal B | Proposal | 14/24 | 18 | ❌ 4 pts below |
| Deal C | Demo | 18/24 | 16 | ✅ Above req |
| Deal D | Qualification | 10/24 | 12 | ❌ 2 pts below |
| Deal E | Negotiation | 16/24 | 21 | ❌ 5 pts below |

**Pipeline Health: 2/5 deals on track (40%)**

---

### Priority Attention

| Priority | Deal | Issue | Recommended Action |
|----------|------|-------|-------------------|
| P1 | Deal E | 5 pts below in Negotiation | Pull back to Proposal |
| P2 | Deal B | 4 pts below in Proposal | Hold proposal, fill gaps |
| P3 | Deal D | 2 pts below in Qualification | Accelerate discovery |

---

### Deal E (CRITICAL)

**Problem:** In Negotiation stage with 16/24 score (req: 21)

This deal is at high risk. Likely gaps in:
- Economic Buyer (not confirmed?)
- Paper Process (not mapped?)
- Competition (unknown?)

**Recommendation:** Do not forecast this deal. Move back to
Proposal stage and address gaps before continuing negotiation.

---

### Common Gaps Across Pipeline

| Component | Avg Score | Concern |
|-----------|-----------|---------|
| Paper Process | 1.2/3 | Most common gap |
| Competition | 1.4/3 | Frequent blind spot |
| Economic Buyer | 1.8/3 | Access issue |

**Coaching Focus:** Paper Process discovery earlier in cycle

Skill Boundaries

What This Skill Does Well

  • Creating structured scorecards
  • Identifying deal gaps
  • Generating coaching questions
  • Tracking deal progression

What This Skill Cannot Do

  • Access your CRM data
  • Know specific deal context
  • Make forecast decisions
  • Replace sales judgment

Iteration Guide

Follow-up Prompts:

  • "Create coaching questions for [component]"
  • "What should we ask about [specific gap]?"
  • "Design stage gate criteria for our process"
  • "Analyze win/loss patterns from scorecards"

References

  • PTC MEDDIC Methodology (Dick Dunkel)
  • Force Management MEDDICC
  • Winning by Design Sales Process
  • Gong Sales Coaching Research

Related Skills

  • lead-qualification-meddic - Full qualification framework
  • deal-risk-scoring - Risk assessment
  • pipeline-forecasting - Forecast methodology

Skill Metadata

  • Domain: Sales
  • Complexity: Intermediate
  • Mode: centaur
  • Time to Value: 15-30 min per deal
  • Prerequisites: Deal information, CRM access

平台分布

Codex

38.57%
按下载量换算236

Claude

27.99%
按下载量换算172

Cursor

20.62%
按下载量换算126

Gemini CLI

8.79%
按下载量换算54

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills