Josh Braun's Poke the Bear
Create and review cold-call talk tracks and cold emails using Josh Braun's Poke the Bear method.
Based on Josh Braun's public method.
Not affiliated with or endorsed by Josh Braun. Each step cites the public work it comes from: 12 sources.From demo request to neutral self-diagnosis
Opens a specific process question, reflects the answer, and leaves continuation to the prospect.
Illustration from the skill's worked example, not a recorded run.
What it does
When your agent should reach for this skill.
Use this skill when drafting a prospecting call, adapting its central question to cold email, repairing a disguised pitch, or reviewing outreach that attracts reflexive dismissals. The deliverable is a prospecting brief plus a usable call or email, with response branches that preserve the prospect's choice. Begin with the job the person performs and how they accomplish it today, rather than the seller's preferred product story. 123
The method is especially useful when a familiar supplier or workaround appears adequate but a separate exposure may remain unexamined. It does not establish that the prospect has a problem. A satisfactory current process, the wrong responsibility, and a refusal are valid discoveries. Do not convert the exercise into a meeting quota, a fear campaign, or a sequence of rebuttals. 4812
Read references/method.md for the reasoning and channel decisions. The sequence below is this package's operational synthesis: Braun's public examples vary, and he explicitly emphasizes intent over a universal script. The examples and template are teaching tools, not scripts he authored. 7
The method
11 steps, restated from Josh Braun's public work. Numbers link to the sources.
1Define the assignment and success
Identify the channel, intended role, job, and seller capability. Set success as learning whether a relevant gap and willingness to discuss it exist. Drafting outreach does not itself authorize sending it. Use the intake fields in templates/output-template.md and the intent rules in references/method.md. 38
2Separate facts from hypotheses
Record verified role information, known workflow details, and unknowns. Mark assumed processes and possible consequences explicitly. Do not invent customers, losses, or statistics to make the opening compelling. Consult the evidence rules in references/method.md and trace any method attribution through references/sources.md. 47
3Map one overlooked exposure
Describe the current approach, the concrete mechanism that could leave something unseen, and its possible consequence. Prefer a specific verification gap over generic savings language. If no defensible exposure exists, ask about the process before proposing one. See the problem map in references/method.md. 24
4Choose a brief, relevant opening
For calls, identify yourself and select a direct or permission opening. Verify responsibility when unknown; use a tentative observation when research supports it. Include peer familiarity only when true. Avoid stacking introductions and qualification questions. See the opening decisions in references/method.md. 15711
5Frame the possibility without accusation
If context is needed, describe a recognizable situation and leave room for it not to apply. Use a peer observation only when supported. Keep product explanation for the point where it helps answer the prospect's question. Follow the framing rules in references/method.md. 36
6Write one neutral process question
Ask how or what they currently do about the job or exposure. Check whether a satisfied prospect can answer comfortably. Add a small, correctable menu only when it reduces effort. Compare the weak and improved drafts in examples/worked-examples.md. 2512
7Create space for the answer
Put a pause after the call question. For email, make the question the reply point and remove competing requests. Keep spoken stretches short and conversational. Use the channel fields in templates/output-template.md and delivery guidance in references/method.md. 1212
8Listen and reflect before deepening
After a response, pause briefly, then reflect or clarify what was actually said. Alternate questions with grounded observations. Explore a revealed gap rather than inventing the next admission. See the listening rules in references/method.md. 911
9Write distinct response branches
Cover an adequate process, a gap, a refusal, interest, and uncertain ownership. Accept satisfaction and stop on an explicit refusal. Clarify a dismissal only if the person remains willing to converse. Use the branch fields in templates/output-template.md. 812
10Offer a conditional next step
When interest appears, connect the capability to their described process, then ask whether a later conversation would help. Honor the promised brevity. Consult the progression rules in references/method.md and the call illustration in examples/worked-examples.md. 1510
11Review and deliver
Apply checklists/review-checklist.md, repair every failed item, and return the brief, finished message, branches, and a short neutrality rationale. State unresolved evidence gaps rather than concealing them. 3812
Worked example
How the method plays out on one case.
1: Software account review, cold call
Scenario and brief
AccessCheck is an invented service that compares software account lists with employee departure records. Priya's public role description indicates that she oversees offboarding. Her tools and completeness of coverage are unknown. The possible exposure is a team-managed account remaining active after the central checklist is complete. No loss amount is established.
Weak first draft
Caller: Hi Priya, Alex from AccessCheck. We help companies save money and improve security with AI. Would you like to eliminate wasted subscriptions? I would love to show you a demo. Can you do Tuesday?
Diagnosis
The benefit question makes disagreement awkward, assumes waste, and jumps to a meeting before examining the process. Generic benefits obscure the concrete exposure. The demo request centers the seller's wish. 246
Improved call
Caller: Hi Priya, Alex from AccessCheck. I know this call is unexpected. Is there time for one quick question?
Priya: Sure.
Caller: Your role description suggests you oversee offboarding. Have I got that right?
Priya: Yes.
Caller: A possible gap is a team-managed account staying active after the central checklist is complete. How does your team check for accounts outside that checklist?
[Pause.]
Priya: We cover central tools, but individual team subscriptions are harder to see.
[Wait two beats.]
Caller: Sounds like the central tools are covered, while team subscriptions are less visible.
[Let Priya elaborate.]
Priya: Right. What does AccessCheck do?
Caller: It compares account lists with departure records so your team can review anything still active. I promised to be brief. Would a short conversation later this week to look at that process be useful?
Alternate response branches
- Adequate process: Priya says every tool is reconciled. Respond: That sounds covered. Thanks for explaining it.
- Gap without interest: Priya identifies a gap but says it is low priority. Respond: Understood. Thanks for the context. Do not treat the gap as a meeting commitment.
- Refusal: Priya says she does not want to discuss it. Respond: Understood. Thanks for your time. Stop.
- Wrong owner: Priya corrects the assumption. Respond: Thanks for correcting me. If she remains willing, ask who handles the process; otherwise close.
Rules that changed the result
The improved question names a verifiable mechanism without asserting that it occurs. Priya can explain a complete process comfortably. Permission and ownership checks establish relevance; the pause and grounded label let her describe the situation. The capability explanation answers her question, and the optional follow-up preserves brevity. 135910
The question would also work without the gap sentence if that framing proved unnecessary. Choosing the shorter version is consistent with Braun's emphasis on curiosity rather than a fixed script. 7
1 more worked example in examples/worked-examples.md.
What's in the package
7 files, pinned at d5668a9. Open any file on GitHub.
SKILL.mdEntry point the agent loads: when to use the skill and the procedure.6,218 bytesLICENSEApache-2.0 license.10,756 bytesreferences/method.mdThe method in full, step by step, with citations.12,856 bytesreferences/sources.mdEvery public source the method is built from.3,429 bytesexamples/worked-examples.mdWorked examples showing the method applied end to end.6,454 bytestemplates/output-template.mdThe output format the agent fills in.5,149 byteschecklists/review-checklist.mdChecks the agent runs before handing back the result.5,417 bytes
Sources
The public work this skill is built from. Read Josh Braun's originals.
- Josh Braun, Poke the Bear cold call frameworklinkedin.com
- Josh Braun, How to Poke the Bearjoshbraun.com
- Josh Braun, Lowering Resistance During a Cold Calljoshbraun.com
- Josh Braun, 95% of Salespeople Don't Need to Overcome Objections, They Need to Poke the Bearjoshbraun.com
- Josh Braun, Lowering Resistancejoshbraun.com
- Josh Braun, I Would Love Tojoshbraun.com
- Josh Braun, How to Approach People Who Have Little Desire to Talk With Youjoshbraun.com
- Josh Braun, People Aren't Targetsjoshbraun.com
- Josh Braun, Listening, public PDFjoshbraun.com
- Josh Braun, Poke the Bear for Aunt Flowjoshbraun.com
- Josh Braun, Do Your Cold Calls Feel Like An Interrogation?joshbraun.com
- Josh Braun, Defusing I'm not interestedjoshbraun.com
The skill file also covers: Files in this skill. Read the full SKILL.md.
Edge wrote this skill from Josh Braun's public writing and talks listed above. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by Josh Braun. If something misrepresents the method, write to [email protected] and we will correct or remove it.