analyzer
npx skills add https://github.com/octavehq/lfgtm --skill analyzer
Agent 安装分布
Skill 文档
/octave:analyzer – Conversation Analysis
Analyze email threads, call transcripts, and sales conversations against your Octave library. Evaluates messaging resonance, playbook adherence, and competitive differentiation. Provides actionable insights, suggested improvements, and draft follow-ups.
Usage
/octave:analyzer [--type email|call|chat]
Examples
/octave:analyzer # Interactive - paste content
/octave:analyzer --type email # Analyze email thread
/octave:analyzer --type call # Analyze call transcript
Instructions
When the user runs /octave:analyzer:
Step 1: Get Content to Analyze
What would you like me to analyze?
1. Paste an email thread
2. Paste a call transcript
3. Paste a chat/message thread
4. Provide a file path
(Paste content below or tell me the file path)
Accept pasted content or read from file. Content can be:
- Email thread (with headers or without)
- Call transcript (with speaker labels or without)
- Chat/messaging thread
- Meeting notes
Step 2: Parse and Structure the Content
For Email: Extract:
- Participants (internal vs external)
- Thread direction (outbound, inbound, back-and-forth)
- Key messages from each party
- Current status (awaiting response, ended, etc.)
For Call Transcript: Extract:
- Participants and roles
- Speaker segments
- Key exchanges
- Duration indicators if available
For Chat: Extract:
- Participants
- Message sequence
- Key exchanges
Step 3: Identify Context
Use MCP tools to gather context:
Research external participants:
# Get external participant info
find_person({
searchMode: "specific_person",
email: "<external email>", # or
firstName: "<name>",
companyName: "<company>"
})
# Get company info
find_company({
domain: "<domain from email>" # or inferred from signature
})
# Match to persona
qualify_person({
person: { email: "<email>", jobTitle: "<title>" },
additionalContext: "Identify which persona this person matches"
})
Get library context:
# Find relevant playbook
search_knowledge_base({
query: "<key topics from conversation>",
entityTypes: ["playbook"]
})
Step 4: Analyze Against Library
Run three analysis dimensions:
Resonance Analysis
Did our messaging land? What signals indicate engagement or disengagement?
Use MCP to get persona details:
# Search for messaging we used
search_knowledge_base({
query: "<key phrases from our messages>",
entityTypes: ["persona", "playbook", "use_case"]
})
# Compare to persona pain points
get_entity({ oId: "<matched_persona_oId>" })
Evaluate:
- Pain points addressed vs. persona’s documented pain points
- Value props used vs. available value props
- Questions asked vs. recommended discovery questions
- Response patterns indicating interest/skepticism
Adherence Analysis
Did we follow the playbook? What did we miss?
Use MCP to get playbook details:
# Get the relevant playbook
get_playbook({ oId: "<matched_playbook_oId>", includeValueProps: true })
Compare conversation to playbook:
- Strategic narrative alignment
- Value props delivered vs. available
- Qualifying questions asked
- Objection handling approach
- Discovery depth
Differentiation Analysis
Did we position against competitors effectively?
Use MCP to get competitor details:
# Check for competitor mentions
search_knowledge_base({
query: "<competitor names or hints from conversation>",
entityTypes: ["competitor"]
})
# Get competitor details
get_entity({ oId: "<competitor_oId>" })
Evaluate:
- Competitor mentions (explicit or implicit)
- Our differentiation points used vs. available
- Landmines set or missed
- Competitive traps addressed
Step 5: Generate Analysis Report
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
=====================
Analyzed: [Email thread / Call transcript / Chat]
Date: [If available]
Duration/Length: [X messages / X minutes]
---
PARTICIPANTS
------------
Internal:
⢠[Name] ([Role]) - [# of messages/speaking time]
External:
⢠[Name] ([Title] at [Company]) - [# of messages/speaking time]
Matched Persona: [Persona name] ([Confidence])
---
CONTEXT IDENTIFIED
------------------
Company: [Company name]
ICP Fit: [Score/100]
Stage: [Discovery / Demo / Negotiation / etc.]
Playbook Match: [Playbook name]
---
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-----------------
[2-3 sentence summary of what happened, key outcomes, and overall assessment]
---
RESONANCE ANALYSIS
==================
Score: [X/10] - [Strong / Moderate / Weak]
What Resonated (Positive Signals):
â [Signal 1] - [Quote or evidence]
"[Exact quote from prospect showing interest]"
â [Signal 2] - [Quote or evidence]
"[Exact quote showing engagement]"
What Didn't Land (Concerns):
â [Issue 1] - [Quote or evidence]
"[Quote showing skepticism or disengagement]"
Suggestion: [How to address this]
â [Issue 2] - [Quote or evidence]
Suggestion: [How to address this]
Pain Points Addressed:
ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
â Persona Pain Point â Addressed? â
ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ¤
â [Pain point 1] â â Yes â
â [Pain point 2] â â No â
â [Pain point 3] â ~ Partially â
ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
Recommendations:
⢠[Specific action to improve resonance]
⢠[Topic to explore in next conversation]
---
ADHERENCE ANALYSIS
==================
Score: [X/10] - [Strong / Moderate / Weak]
Playbook: [Playbook name]
Playbook Elements Used:
â [Element 1] - Used effectively
â [Element 2] - Used effectively
Playbook Elements Missed:
â [Element 3] - Not addressed
Why it matters: [Impact of missing this]
Add in follow-up: [Suggestion]
â [Element 4] - Not addressed
Why it matters: [Impact]
Add in follow-up: [Suggestion]
Value Props Delivered:
ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
â Value Prop â Delivered? â Impact â
ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ¤
â [VP 1 for this persona] â â Strong â Positive â
â [VP 2 for this persona] â â No â Opportunity â
â [VP 3 for this persona] â ~ Weak â Reinforce â
ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
Discovery Questions:
âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
â Recommended Question â Asked? â Answer â
âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ¤
â [Question 1 from playbook] â â Yes â [Summary] â
â [Question 2 from playbook] â â No â - â
â [Question 3 from playbook] â â No â - â
âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
Recommendations:
⢠Ask "[missed question]" in follow-up
⢠Reinforce "[underdelivered value prop]" with proof point
---
DIFFERENTIATION ANALYSIS
========================
Score: [X/10] - [Strong / Moderate / Weak]
Competitors Detected:
⢠[Competitor 1] - [How mentioned: explicit / implicit / inferred]
⢠[Competitor 2] - [How mentioned]
Differentiation Points Used:
â [Differentiator 1] - "[Quote where we differentiated]"
â [Differentiator 2] - "[Quote]"
Differentiation Opportunities Missed:
â [Differentiator 3] - Not mentioned
When to use: [Trigger from conversation where this would fit]
â [Differentiator 4] - Not mentioned
When to use: [Trigger]
Competitive Positioning:
ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
â Our Differentiator â Mentioned? â Impact â
ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ¤
â [Diff 1 vs competitor]â â Yes â Strong â
â [Diff 2 vs competitor]â â No â Missed â
â [Diff 3 vs competitor]â â No â Missed â
ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
Competitive Risks:
â [Risk identified from conversation]
Counter: [How to address]
Recommendations:
⢠In follow-up, plant this landmine: "[Question that exposes competitor weakness]"
⢠Reference: "[Proof point of competitive win]"
---
ACTION ITEMS IDENTIFIED
=======================
From Prospect (They Committed To):
â¡ [Action item prospect mentioned]
â¡ [Action item prospect mentioned]
From Us (We Should Do):
â¡ [Action we committed to]
â¡ [Implied action to take]
Open Questions (Need Answers):
? [Unresolved question from conversation]
? [Question we should have asked]
---
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
=========================
Immediate (Within 24 Hours):
1. [Specific action]
Why: [Reason/urgency]
This Week:
2. [Action to advance the conversation]
3. [Content to send based on conversation]
Topics for Next Conversation:
⢠[Topic 1 to address]
⢠[Topic 2 to explore]
⢠[Objection to preempt]
---
SUGGESTED FOLLOW-UP MESSAGE
===========================
Based on this conversation, here's a draft follow-up:
---
Subject: [Subject line]
[Personalized opening referencing specific moment from conversation]
[Address any open questions or commitments]
[Reinforce key value prop that resonated]
[Add missed value prop or proof point naturally]
[Clear next step / CTA]
[Sign off]
---
Want me to:
1. Refine this follow-up
2. Create a different style of follow-up
3. Generate content for a specific gap identified
4. Analyze another conversation
Step 6: Offer Refinements
What would you like to do next?
1. Deep dive on a specific analysis area
2. Get more suggestions for [resonance / adherence / differentiation]
3. Refine the follow-up message
4. Generate content to address gaps
5. Compare to another conversation
6. Save insights to deal notes
7. Done
Your choice:
Analysis Scoring Guide
Resonance Score (1-10)
| Score | Meaning | Signals |
|---|---|---|
| 9-10 | Strong engagement | Multiple questions, shared details, expressed urgency |
| 7-8 | Good engagement | Engaged responses, some interest signals |
| 5-6 | Neutral | Polite but non-committal |
| 3-4 | Weak | Short responses, delayed replies |
| 1-2 | Disengaged | Objections, pushback, ghosting |
Adherence Score (1-10)
| Score | Meaning | Signals |
|---|---|---|
| 9-10 | Full adherence | All playbook elements used appropriately |
| 7-8 | Good adherence | Most elements used, minor gaps |
| 5-6 | Partial adherence | Some elements used, key gaps |
| 3-4 | Weak adherence | Few elements used, off-playbook |
| 1-2 | Non-adherent | Didn’t follow playbook approach |
Differentiation Score (1-10)
| Score | Meaning | Signals |
|---|---|---|
| 9-10 | Strong positioning | Clear differentiation, competitive landmines set |
| 7-8 | Good positioning | Some differentiation, mostly positioned |
| 5-6 | Neutral | Didn’t address competition directly |
| 3-4 | Weak positioning | Competitor strengths uncountered |
| 1-2 | Poor positioning | Lost competitive ground |
MCP Tools Used
Research
find_person– Identify external participantsfind_company– Get company contextqualify_person– Match to persona
Library Context
get_playbook– Get playbook for adherence analysisget_entity– Get persona, competitor detailssearch_knowledge_base– Find relevant messaging, proof points
Content Generation
generate_content– Draft follow-up messagesgenerate_email– Generate email responses
Input Formats Supported
Email Thread
From: john@acme.com
To: me@company.com
Subject: Re: Quick question about your platform
[Message content]
---
On Jan 15, me@company.com wrote:
> [Previous message]
Call Transcript
[00:00] Sales Rep: Thanks for joining...
[00:15] Prospect: Happy to be here...
or
Sales Rep: Thanks for joining...
John (Acme): Happy to be here...
Chat/Message Thread
Me: Hey John, following up on our conversation
John: Thanks for reaching out
Me: Did you have a chance to review the proposal?
Error Handling
No Content Provided:
Please paste the content you’d like me to analyze, or provide a file path.
I can analyze:
- Email threads
- Call transcripts
- Chat messages
- Meeting notes
Cannot Identify Participants:
I couldn’t identify the external participant.
Can you tell me:
- Who is the prospect? (name, company, title)
- What stage is this deal in?
This helps me match to the right persona and playbook.
No Matching Playbook:
I couldn’t find a playbook that matches this conversation.
I’ll analyze against general best practices, but for better insights:
- Create a relevant playbook (/octave:library create playbook)
- Or tell me which playbook should apply
Related Skills
/octave:research– Deep research on participants/octave:generate– Generate follow-up content/octave:pmm– Create collateral to address gaps/octave:audit– Ensure playbooks have complete guidance/octave:pipeline– Deal coaching based on conversation analysis/octave:insights– Aggregate patterns across many conversations