From Claudient — SDR
- Drafting cold outreach to a new account and you don't know the champion's seniority level yet - You have an executive response and need to move to their direct reports for implementation buy-in - Co
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/claudient-sdr:atl-btl-messagingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- Drafting cold outreach to a new account and you don't know the champion's seniority level yet
ATL messaging is outcome + authority. BTL messaging is process + proof. Same problem, two different buyers.
Decision logic: Always try ATL first on cold accounts. If no response after 2 touches (separated by 5–7 days), shift to BTL. If you land an ATL champion, immediately map and pitch their directs BTL.
Buyer psychology: Executives own the business outcome. They think in fiscal quarters and board-level metrics. They care about risk, competitive positioning, and reputation.
Message structure (under 60 words):
Opening: State the business problem as their problem, not your solution space
Impact: One specific metric that matters to their board
CTA: Disarm with smallness
Subject line formula (ATL email):
[Company name], [Outcome], [Timeframe]: [Metric outcome]Goldman Sachs, Month-End Close, Q3 2026: 3-day accelerationTone markers:
Buyer psychology: Non-executives execute the work. They care about daily friction, skill gaps, and how much easier their life becomes. They're skeptical of hype but respond to specific workflow wins.
Message structure (80–120 words):
Opening: Name the specific task they do repetitively
Concrete change: How the workflow changes (not why it works)
Proof: Specific use case from a comparable team (not a testimonial)
CTA: Offer to show, not to talk
Subject line formula (BTL email):
[Their title/team], [specific workflow], [time saved]Finance Ops, AR reconciliation, save 3–4 hours per closeTone markers:
Rule 1: Cold Account, Unknown Contact
Rule 2: ATL Response (Positive)
Rule 3: ATL Response (Negative or Objection)
Rule 4: ATL No Response (Silence)
Rule 5: Expansion (You Have an ATL Champion)
| Trap | Why It Fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| ATL email starts with "We built…" | Executives don't care about your build; they care about their outcome | Start with the outcome: "We've seen finance teams lose $X to late closes" |
| BTL email has no time estimate | Operators live in time; they need to know the payoff | Always quantify: "saves 3–4 hours per month-end" |
| Using the same language for ATL and BTL | ATL talks revenue/risk; BTL talks workflow/time | Rewrite completely — different keywords, structure, tone |
| BTL CTA is "let's chat" | Non-execs are skeptical of demos; they want proof first | Offer a screen share, a walkthrough, a 1-pager showing their specific workflow |
| Pitching ATL executive the same way you'd pitch BTL | You sound junior and detail-focused | Increase altitude: drop all technical specifics, lead with outcome |
| Assuming ATL rejection means no deal | Executives route you down; they don't shut you down themselves | After ATL silence, assume you need to reach BTL; don't repeat the ATL angle |
Template 1: ATL Cold Email
Subject: [Company], [Outcome], [Timeframe]: [Metric]
Hi [First Name],
[Competitive threat or market shift in your industry]
We work with [Peer company/industry], and they typically [current state metric].
The gap vs. [benchmark or competitor] is [X]%.
Worth 15 minutes to map this to your situation?
[Your name]
Template 2: ATL Follow-Up (5 days later)
Subject: re: [Competitive threat]
Quick follow — wanted to flag that [additional specific metric or use case]
often surfaces when we dig into [their business challenge].
If it's on your radar, happy to point you to [peer company example or benchmark report].
[Your name]
Template 3: BTL Cold Email
Subject: [Their title/team], [specific workflow], [time saved]
Hi [First Name],
If you're [specific repetitive task], you're probably [specific pain point].
A few of your peers at [Comparable company] told us they were spending [time]
on [specific steps] every [frequency].
We helped them [concrete change: instead of X, now Y]. That freed up about [time] per [frequency].
Happy to show you exactly how that would work for your team — even just 15 minutes could clarify if it's a fit.
[Your name]
Template 4: BTL Follow-Up (7 days later)
Subject: [Their workflow] + [your tool]: [Concrete benefit]
Hi [First Name],
One more data point from [Comparable company]: when they [specific workflow change],
they went from [metric A] to [metric B] in [timeframe].
Could put together a 3-slide walkthrough of how this would work with your specific [system/process].
Interested?
[Your name]
Cold response rates (typical SaaS B2B):
Time-to-first-meeting:
Conversion rate (cold → deal):
Same value prop, two altitudes:
Subject line: TechCorp, finance close cycle, Q3 2026: Save 2 days per month-end
Email:
Hi Sarah,
We're seeing finance teams at mid-market tech companies spend 3–5 days reconciling
corporate expenses against coding. Your closest competitors have automated that layer
and freed up 2–3 FTEs' worth of manual work.
The gap is usually $200K–$500K in working capital acceleration over a fiscal year.
Worth 15 minutes to map this to TechCorp's close process?
[Your name]
Why this works ATL:
If CFO is silent 2x: Move to BTL.
Subject line: Finance Ops, expense coding, save 4 hours per month-end
Email:
Hi Marcus,
If you're manually matching corporate card expenses to cost codes every month-end,
you're probably flagging ~2–3% of transactions that don't auto-match, then spending
2–4 hours finding the right codes in your coding structure.
Your peers at [Comparable company, 400 people] told us they were doing the same.
When they switched to rules-based matching (Amex data → your cost structure),
they went from 85% auto-match to 98% auto-match. Freed up ~4 hours per close.
Happy to show you exactly how it works with your existing Amex setup and Netsuite.
Could be 15 minutes.
[Your name]
Why this works BTL:
Expected motion:
Starting point: You've had a 20-minute call with the VP of Engineering. She said, "This could work. Talk to my data lead about integration complexity."
ATL call outcome:
"Our data infrastructure is fragile. When it breaks, we lose 6–8 hours of
analytics visibility. My data lead is [Name], [email]. He should probably
dig into whether this integrates cleanly with our stack."
Next move: Send BTL to the data lead (with ATL context)
Subject line: Data Lead, [Company], analytics pipeline + [Your tool]: integration spec
Email:
Hi [Data Lead Name],
Following up on my conversation with [VP Name] last week. She mentioned your
data pipeline sometimes goes dark when [specific failure mode], and analytics
teams have to manually rebuild queries for ~6+ hours.
We've worked with teams at [Comparable company, similar stack] who run
[Your tool] → Kafka → Snowflake. They went from manual recovery (6–8 hours)
to automated failover (15 minutes, 99.2% uptime).
I know integrations are the real question. Could walk you through the connector
spec and how it fits your specific [system names] — 20 minutes, and you'd know
if it's even worth engineering cycles.
Sound useful?
[Your name]
Why this works as ATL→BTL expansion:
Expected outcome: Data lead either:
All three are wins compared to generic "let's chat" outreach.
npx claudepluginhub claudient/claudient --plugin claudient-sdrProvides behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes, focusing on simplicity, surgical changes, assumption surfacing, and verifiable success criteria.
Searches, retrieves, and installs Agent Skills from prompts.chat registry using MCP tools like search_skills and get_skill. Activates for finding skills, browsing catalogs, or extending Claude.