Technical readiness
Show the technical work is already done or scoped, so the partner is not being asked to build anything speculative.
Elad Gil's handbook notes platform partner teams reject pitches that require them to build the integration; the deck must show the API/SDK is already live.
- API or SDK status: live, in beta, documented
- Comparable partner logos already integrated at a similar technical depth
- What the partner needs to do technically, stated as a short list
- Full technical architecture diagrams
- Roadmap items that are not yet built
- The API is 'planned' but not built
- No comparable integrations exist yet at the claimed depth
- Overstating API maturity to seem ready before diligence
- Listing logos that used a different, shallower integration
- · Could a partner engineer read this and know exactly what to expect from your API?
- · Are the comparable logos verifiable, not just names on a slide?
Our [API/SDK] is live and documented at [link]; [comparable partners] are integrated at the same depth; your side needs [short list].
"Our API is cutting-edge and ready to unlock any integration you can imagine."
"Our REST API and Slack-specific SDK are live and documented; QuickBooks and Deel are integrated at the same OAuth depth; your side needs a directory listing review and a 2-week security check."
States what is live, names comparable integrated partners, and lists the exact remaining steps for the partner.
Quick quiz
1. What do platform partner teams check first on technical readiness?
- ○ Whether the API is planned for next year
- ✓ Whether the API/SDK is already live and documented
- ○ The size of the engineering team
- ○ The programming language used
Partners avoid pitches that require them to wait on unbuilt infrastructure.
2. Why list comparable integrated partners?
- ○ To pad the slide
- ✓ To show the integration depth is proven, not novel
- ○ To criticize competitors
- ○ To avoid stating an ask
Precedent at the same technical depth reduces perceived risk for the reviewer.