Classify Rep Profile

Example 1 — Sales rep self-assessment (complex B2B SaaS)

Scenario: A mid-market account executive at a SaaS company asked "I always get good reviews from customers but I'm not hitting quota. What profile am I?"

Trigger: "What sales profile am I? I think I might be a Relationship Builder."

Process: Agent established deal complexity (complex, multi-stakeholder SaaS deals, 60-90 day cycles). Administered the diagnostic — rep scored: Q1=5, Q2=3, Q3=4, Q4=2, Q5=3, Q6=3, Q7=4, Q8=2, Q9=2, Q10=3.

Output excerpt from rep-profile-assessment.md:

Challenger Subscale Scores:
Teaches for Differentiation (Q2+Q3): 7 — Foundation
Tailors for Resonance (Q5+Q6): 6 — Foundation
Takes Control (Q8+Q9): 4 — New territory
Dominant profile: Relationship Builder (Q1=5 flag; Takes Control at floor)
Priority 1 — Takes Control (score: 4): Practice holding the silence after a proposal.
In the next 3 deals, script one moment where you guide the customer to a decision rather
than waiting. Specifically: become comfortable discussing pricing on the customer's terms.
Note: In complex SaaS deals (your context), Relationship Builder profile correlates with
nearly zero star performance. Your teaching and tailoring foundations are buildable —
but Take Control is the most urgent gap between your current approach and quota attainment.

Example 2 — Manager diagnosing a rep before coaching

Scenario: A regional sales manager wants to understand her top performer's profile before scaling his approach to the team.

Trigger: "My best rep is crushing quota. I want to understand his selling style before I ask him to mentor others."

Process: Agent flagged the anti-pattern — high performer ≠ Challenger. Manager provided deal notes from the rep's last three wins. Agent administered diagnostic in third-person ("How would [rep] rate himself on each statement?"). Rep scored: Q1=3, Q2=5, Q3=5, Q4=4, Q8=4, Q9=5 (Lone Wolf flag on Q4; strong Challenger subscales).

Output excerpt:

Dominant profile: Challenger (all three subscales 8+)
Secondary tendency: Lone Wolf (Q4=4 — willing to risk disapproval)
Safe to scale: Yes — this rep's performance is driven by Challenger behaviors
(Teach/Tailor/Take Control), not Lone Wolf rule-breaking. The Lone Wolf flag
is a secondary tendency, not the primary mechanism of their success.
Recommendation: Observe and codify this rep's commercial teaching conversations
specifically — how they frame unique perspectives and hold tension before closing.
Those are the replicable behaviors.

Example 3 — Team enablement baseline

Scenario: A sales enablement leader wants to understand where her 12-person team clusters before rolling out a Challenger training program.

Trigger: "Can you help me assess what profile mix I have on my team so I know where to focus training?"

Process: Agent recommended running the diagnostic for each rep individually (or self-administered in a group session) and aggregating subscale scores. Agent produced a team profile summary template.

Output excerpt:

Team Profile Summary (12 reps):
3 reps: Challenger (all subscales 5+, no dominant profile flags)
4 reps: Relationship Builder dominant (Q1=5, Takes Control at 4 or below)
2 reps: Hard Worker dominant (Q10=5, transactional deal focus)
2 reps: Challenger in development (subscales 5-7, no strong flags)
1 rep: Lone Wolf flag (Q4=5, inconsistent subscale scores)
Training priority: Takes Control subscale (team average: 5.2 — lowest).
8 of 12 reps score below 7 on Takes Control. Recommend leading training with
money conversation practice and guided commitment techniques before moving
to teaching content — the team can teach but cannot close the tension.