insights

Surface findings, trends, and patterns from calls, emails, and deals. Use when user says "what are prospects saying", "common objections", "conversation trends", "field intelligence", "what patterns", or asks about aggregate conversation insights. Do NOT use for deal-level win/loss analysis — use /octave:wins-losses instead.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "insights" with this command: npx skills add octavehq/lfgtm/octavehq-lfgtm-insights

/octave:insights - Field Intelligence

Surface insights from your sales conversations—objections, pain points, questions, and what's resonating. Learn from the field to improve your library and messaging.

Usage

/octave:insights [--type <finding-type>] [--period <time-range>]

Options

  • --type <type> - Focus on specific finding type (objections, pain-points, questions, competitors, value-props)
  • --period <range> - Time range (today, week, month, quarter, custom)
  • --segment <name> - Filter by segment
  • --persona <name> - Filter by persona
  • --company <domain> - Filter by company

Examples

/octave:insights                                    # Overview of recent insights
/octave:insights --type objections                  # Top objections
/octave:insights --type pain-points --period month  # Pain points this month
/octave:insights --persona "CTO"                    # Insights from CTO conversations
/octave:insights --company acme.com                 # Insights from Acme conversations

Instructions

When the user runs /octave:insights:

Step 1: Determine Focus

If no options provided, show an overview:

What insights would you like to explore?

1. Overview - Summary across all finding types
2. Objections - What objections are prospects raising?
3. Pain Points - What problems are prospects mentioning?
4. Questions - What are prospects asking about?
5. Competitors - Which competitors are coming up?
6. Value Props - Which value props are resonating?
7. Custom - Specific filters

Your choice (or just ask a question):

Step 2: Query Events and Findings

Use the MCP tools to gather data:

For Overview:

# Get recent events
list_events({
  eventTypes: ["CALL_TRANSCRIPT", "EMAIL_SENT", "EMAIL_REPLY_RECEIVED"],
  dateRange: { start: "<30 days ago>", end: "<today>" },
  limit: 50
})

# Get finding aggregates
list_findings({
  extractionTypes: [
    "CALL_EXTERNAL_OBJECTIONS",
    "CALL_EXTERNAL_BUSINESS_PROBLEMS",
    "CALL_EXTERNAL_QUESTIONS_OR_CONFUSION_ABOUT_OFFERING",
    "CALL_EXTERNAL_COMPETITORS_TO_OUR_OFFERING",
    "CALL_INTERNAL_VALUE_PROP_PRESENTATIONS"
  ],
  dateRange: { start: "<30 days ago>", end: "<today>" },
  groupBy: "extractionType",
  limit: 100
})

For Specific Type (e.g., Objections):

list_findings({
  extractionTypes: ["CALL_EXTERNAL_OBJECTIONS", "EMAIL_OBJECTION"],
  dateRange: { start: "<period start>", end: "<period end>" },
  limit: 50
})

With Persona/Segment Filter:

list_findings({
  extractionTypes: ["<types>"],
  entityMatches: {
    personaOIds: ["<persona_oId>"]
  },
  limit: 50
})

Step 3: Present Insights


Overview Output

FIELD INSIGHTS: Last 30 Days
============================

Activity Summary
----------------
Total Events Analyzed: 127
- Calls: 45
- Emails Sent: 62
- Email Replies: 20

Companies Engaged: 34
Personas Reached: 5 types

---

TOP OBJECTIONS (12 instances)
-----------------------------
1. "Pricing seems high compared to alternatives" (5x)
   Companies: Acme, TechCorp, DataFlow
   Trend: ↑ Increasing from last month

2. "Concerned about implementation timeline" (4x)
   Companies: BigCo, Enterprise Inc
   Trend: → Stable

3. "Need to involve more stakeholders" (3x)
   Companies: Acme, CloudBase
   Trend: ↓ Decreasing

Library Gap: Objection #1 not addressed in current playbooks
→ Suggestion: Add pricing justification to Enterprise playbook

---

TOP PAIN POINTS (18 instances)
------------------------------
1. "Manual processes taking too much time" (7x)
   Personas: VP Operations, Director of Ops
   ✓ Matches persona: VP Operations pain points

2. "Data silos across departments" (6x)
   Personas: CTO, VP Engineering
   ⚠ Not in current personas - consider adding

3. "Compliance reporting is painful" (5x)
   Personas: CFO, VP Finance
   ✓ Matches persona: CFO pain points

---

TOP QUESTIONS (15 instances)
----------------------------
1. "How does integration with [X] work?" (6x)
   Topics: Salesforce (3), HubSpot (2), Slack (1)

2. "What's the typical implementation timeline?" (5x)

3. "Can you share customer references in [industry]?" (4x)
   Industries requested: Healthcare (2), Finance (2)

---

COMPETITORS MENTIONED (8 instances)
-----------------------------------
1. Competitor A (4x)
   Context: Price comparison, feature parity questions

2. Competitor B (3x)
   Context: Already using, considering switch

3. Competitor C (1x)
   Context: Mentioned as alternative

---

VALUE PROPS THAT RESONATED
--------------------------
Based on positive responses and engagement:

1. "Reduce manual work by 80%" - Strong positive response (4 instances)
2. "Single source of truth" - Good engagement (3 instances)
3. "ROI within 90 days" - Generated follow-up questions (3 instances)

---

RECOMMENDATIONS
===============

Library Updates Suggested:
1. ADD: "Integration complexity concerns" to CTO persona objections
2. ADD: "Data silos" as pain point to VP Engineering persona
3. UPDATE: Enterprise playbook with pricing justification talk track

Content Gaps Identified:
1. Need Healthcare industry references (requested 2x)
2. Need Salesforce integration documentation (asked 3x)

Follow-Up Actions:
1. 3 deals have stalled objections - review with /octave:research
2. 2 competitors gaining mentions - update battlecards with /octave:battlecard

---

Dive deeper:
1. Show me objection details
2. Show me pain point details
3. See specific events
4. Apply updates to library

Type-Specific Output (Objections)

OBJECTION INSIGHTS: Last 30 Days
================================

Total Objections: 23 across 18 conversations

---

OBJECTION BREAKDOWN
-------------------

1. PRICING CONCERNS (8 instances - 35%)
   ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 35%

   Examples:
   • "Your pricing is 2x what we're paying now" - Acme Corp, Jan 15
   • "Hard to justify the cost to leadership" - TechCorp, Jan 18
   • "Competitor X is offering a lower rate" - DataFlow, Jan 22

   Personas: CFO (4), VP Operations (3), Procurement (1)

   How We Responded:
   ✓ 3x mentioned ROI/payback period
   ✓ 2x offered pilot/proof of value
   ✗ 3x no documented response

   Playbook Guidance Available: Partial
   → Missing: TCO comparison, hidden cost analysis

2. IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS (6 instances - 26%)
   ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 26%

   Examples:
   • "We don't have bandwidth for a long implementation" - BigCo, Jan 12
   • "Last software rollout took 6 months" - Enterprise Inc, Jan 19

   Personas: CTO (3), VP Engineering (2), IT Director (1)

   How We Responded:
   ✓ 4x mentioned typical timeline
   ✓ 2x referenced quick-start option

   Playbook Guidance Available: Yes ✓

3. STAKEHOLDER/TIMING (5 instances - 22%)
   ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 22%

   Examples:
   • "Need to loop in our CTO" - CloudBase, Jan 14
   • "Budget cycle starts in Q2" - Acme, Jan 20

   Personas: VP Sales (2), Director (2), Manager (1)

   This is a buying process objection, not product objection.
   → Suggestion: Multi-threading strategy needed

4. FEATURE GAPS (4 instances - 17%)
   ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 17%

   Specific features mentioned:
   • "Do you support SSO?" (2x)
   • "Need on-prem option" (1x)
   • "Looking for [specific integration]" (1x)

---

OBJECTION HANDLING EFFECTIVENESS
--------------------------------

| Objection | Times Handled Well | Times Missed | Success Rate |
|-----------|-------------------|--------------|--------------|
| Pricing | 5 | 3 | 62% |
| Implementation | 4 | 2 | 67% |
| Stakeholder | 2 | 3 | 40% |
| Features | 1 | 3 | 25% |

---

RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------

1. HIGH PRIORITY: Improve pricing objection handling
   - Current playbook response rate: 62%
   - Add: TCO comparison framework
   - Add: "Hidden costs of status quo" talking points

2. MEDIUM PRIORITY: Stakeholder objection strategy
   - Low success rate (40%)
   - Add: Multi-threading guide to playbooks
   - Add: Executive sponsor identification questions

3. TRACK: Feature requests
   - SSO requested 2x - is this on roadmap?
   - On-prem still coming up - competitive disadvantage?

---

Want me to:
1. Draft objection handling language for playbooks
2. Show specific conversations with these objections
3. Compare to last month's objections
4. Update library with recommendations

Step 4: Drill Down Options

When user wants to see specific events:

get_event_detail({
  eventOId: "<event_oId>"
})

Present the full context:

EVENT DETAILS: Call with John Smith (Acme Corp)
===============================================
Date: January 15, 2026
Duration: 32 minutes
Participants:
  - Internal: Sarah (AE), Mike (SE)
  - External: John Smith (VP Ops), Lisa Chen (Director)

Matched Persona: VP Operations
Matched Playbook: Enterprise Efficiency

---

KEY FINDINGS

Objections Raised:
• [12:34] John: "Your pricing is 2x what we're paying now for our current solution"
  → Response: Sarah mentioned ROI payback period

Pain Points Acknowledged:
• [08:15] John: "We're spending 20 hours a week on manual data entry"
  → Matches persona pain point ✓

• [15:42] Lisa: "The biggest issue is data not syncing between systems"
  → Consider adding to persona

Questions Asked:
• [18:20] John: "How long does implementation typically take?"
• [22:05] Lisa: "Do you integrate with Salesforce?"

Competitor Mentioned:
• [25:30] John: "We looked at [Competitor] last year but didn't move forward"

Value Props Delivered:
• [10:15] Sarah: "Customers typically see 80% reduction in manual work"
  → Positive response from John

---

[View full transcript] (uses get_event_detail with includeTranscript: true)

Step 5: Apply Updates to Library

If user wants to update library based on insights:

Based on this insight, I recommend:

Update Persona: VP Operations
Add pain point: "Data silos causing manual reconciliation work"
Add objection: "Pricing compared to current solution"

Update Playbook: Enterprise Efficiency
Add objection handling: "Pricing 2x current solution"
Response: "Let's look at total cost of ownership including the 20 hours/week
your team spends on manual work. At $X/hour, that's $Y annually..."

Apply these updates?
1. Yes, update both
2. Update persona only
3. Update playbook only
4. Let me customize first
5. Skip

If yes, use update_entity to apply.

Finding Types Reference

TypeDescriptionExtraction Types
objectionsPushback and concerns raisedCALL_EXTERNAL_OBJECTIONS, EMAIL_OBJECTION
pain-pointsProblems prospects mentionCALL_EXTERNAL_BUSINESS_PROBLEMS, EMAIL_PAIN_POINT
questionsQuestions asked about offeringCALL_EXTERNAL_QUESTIONS_OR_CONFUSION_ABOUT_OFFERING, EMAIL_QUESTION
competitorsCompetitor mentionsCALL_EXTERNAL_COMPETITORS_TO_OUR_OFFERING, EMAIL_COMPETITOR_MENTION
value-propsValue props that resonatedCALL_INTERNAL_VALUE_PROP_PRESENTATIONS, EMAIL_VALUE_PROP
use-casesUse cases discussedCALL_INTERNAL_USE_CASES_BROUGHT_UP, EMAIL_USE_CASE
proof-pointsProof points referencedCALL_INTERNAL_PROOF_POINTS, EMAIL_PROOF_POINT

MCP Tools Used

Event & Finding Access

  • list_events - Search events with filters
  • list_findings - Aggregate findings across events
  • get_event_detail - Get detailed event info with transcript/content

Library Context

  • get_entity - Get persona/playbook details
  • search_knowledge_base - Find related library content

Library Updates

  • update_entity - Apply suggested updates

Error Handling

No Events Found:

No events found for the specified period.

This could mean:

  1. No calls/emails have been synced yet
  2. The date range is too narrow
  3. Filters are too restrictive

Try:

  • Expanding the date range
  • Removing filters
  • Check that your CRM/email integration is connected in Octave

No Findings Extracted:

Events found but no findings extracted yet.

Findings are extracted automatically when events are processed. Recent events may still be processing.

Check back in a few minutes, or view raw events instead.

Related Skills

  • /octave:analyzer - Analyze specific conversations in depth
  • /octave:wins-losses - Focus on deal outcomes
  • /octave:audit - Ensure library captures field learnings
  • /octave:library - Update library with insights
  • /octave:battlecard - Competitive intelligence from conversation data
  • /octave:icp-refine - Use conversation patterns to refine ICP
  • /octave:enablement - Turn field insights into team enablement materials

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Research

research

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

one-pager

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

proposal

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

abm

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review