Bring us a live deal
Documentation · Replicate Labs

The product, page by page. Every page is also served as Markdown, so the same words reach the models a team works in.

Coaching

Getting a better answer

The difference between a generic reply and a useful one is nearly always the input. What to include, what to leave out, and how to push back.

The most common complaint about any AI coach is that the answer was generic. In almost every case the input was generic first. This page is the fix.

#Four things that change the answer

Name the accountA named opportunity lets the coach use everything it already knows about it and everything it learns in this session. An unnamed one is a hypothetical, and it will be answered like one.
Quote, do not paraphrase"He said we would need to revisit it next quarter" is evidence. "He was non-committal" is your conclusion about evidence, and the coach cannot go behind it.
Say what you want out of itA read on risk, the words for an email, a decision on whether to walk. These produce different answers. Left unsaid, you get the middle of them.
Give the constraintWho the reader is, how long it can be, what has already been tried, what you are not allowed to offer. Constraints are what make output usable rather than plausible.
The four levers. Any one of them lifts a generic answer; all four together change the character of the session.

#The same question, twice

Generic in, generic out

"How do I handle a price objection?"

Specific in, usable out

"On Contoso, the ops director said our number was 40% above the incumbent's renewal. She has not seen the implementation scope yet. I want the two questions I ask before I say anything about price, and I do not have authority to discount."

The second one names the account, quotes the buyer, states the gap in what they know, says what is wanted, and gives the constraint. It is not longer because longer is better; every clause is doing work.

#Push back on the answer

The coach is not fragile and the first answer is not final. Useful follow-ups:

  • "That assumes she is the decision maker. She is not." Corrections carry forward, so this improves everything after it too.
  • "Too long. Half that, and drop the pleasantries."
  • "Give me the version that works if she has already decided against us."
  • "What would have to be true for this to be a bad idea?"
  • "Say it the way I would say it, not the way a consultant would."

#Ask for the artefact, not the advice

The single highest-leverage habit. Compare "how should I follow up" with "write the follow-up". The first gets you principles you already knew; the second gets you something to edit and send, and the editing is where you find out whether the coach understood the deal.

#When the answer is still thin

Three causes, in order of likelihood.

  1. The input was thin. Re-read what you sent as if you were the coach. Could a stranger act on it?
  2. The coach does not know something about your business. If it is wrong about your product, your pricing model or your competitors, that is a knowledge base gap, and it belongs with your administrator rather than with you.
  3. You are asking the wrong coach. A rep coach is built to work one deal; a manager coach is built to read across a team. Asking either to do the other's job produces something bland.

Last updated 3 September 2026

View as Markdown