Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Qualifies inbound leads against full ICP criteria — company size, industry, use case fit, role/seniority of the person. Checks CRM and existing customer base for duplicates and existing relationships. Outputs a scored CSV with qualification status, reasoning, and pipeline overlap flags. Tool-agnostic — works with any CRM, enrichment tool, or data source.
.claude/skills/gooseworks-ai-inbound-lead-qualification/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 258% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 246% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 194% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 381% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 231% | 0% |
Takes a set of inbound leads and validates each against your full ICP criteria. Not a fast-pass triage (that's inbound-lead-triage) — this is the thorough qualification step that determines whether a lead is genuinely worth pursuing, and produces a scored CSV for the team.
Load this composite when:
[Inbound Leads] → Step 1: Load ICP & Config → Step 2: CRM/Pipeline Check → Step 3: Company Qualification → Step 4: Person Qualification → Step 5: Use Case Fit → Step 6: Score & Verdict → Step 7: Output CSVOn first run, establish the ICP definition and CRM access. Save to the current working directory or wherever the user prefers (e.g., config/lead-qualification.json).
json{ "icp_definition": { "company_size": { "min_employees": null, "max_employees": null, "sweet_spot": "", "notes": "" }, "industry": { "target_industries": [], "excluded_industries": [], "notes": "" }, "use_case": { "primary_use_cases": [], "secondary_use_cases": [], "anti_use_cases": [], "notes": "" }, "company_stage": { "target_stages": [], "excluded_stages": [], "notes": "" }, "geography": { "target_regions": [], "excluded_regions": [], "notes": "" } }, "buyer_personas": [ { "name": "", "titles": [], "seniority_levels": [], "departments": [], "is_economic_buyer": false, "is_champion": false, "is_user": false } ], "hard_disqualifiers": [], "hard_qualifiers": [], "crm_access": { "tool": "HubSpot | Salesforce | CSV export | none", "access_method": "", "tables_or_objects": [] }, "existing_customer_source": { "tool": "HubSpot | Salesforce | CSV | none", "access_method": "" }, "qualification_prompt_path": "path/to/lead-qualification/prompt.md or null" }
If lead-qualification capability already has a saved qualification prompt: Reference it directly — don't rebuild ICP criteria from scratch.
On subsequent runs: Load config silently.
lead-qualification capability)inbound-lead-triage (already normalized)If >50% of leads are missing critical fields (company name or person title), recommend running inbound-lead-enrichment first. Ask: "Many leads are missing company/title data. Want me to enrich them first, or qualify with what's available?"
For each lead, check against existing data sources to identify overlaps:
Check 1 — Existing customer?
existing_customer with customer details (plan, account owner, contract status)Check 2 — Already in pipeline?
in_pipeline with deal details (stage, owner, last activity)Check 3 — Previous engagement?
previously_contacted with history summary (when, what channel, outcome)Check 4 — Known from signal composites?
signal_flagged with signal type and dateEach lead tagged with:
pipeline_status: new | existing_customer | in_pipeline | previously_contactedpipeline_detail: One sentence explaining the overlap (or null)signal_flags: Any signal composite matchesFor each lead's company, evaluate against every ICP company dimension:
Dimension 1 — Company Size
match | borderline | mismatch | unknownDimension 2 — Industry
match | adjacent (related but not core target) | mismatch | unknownDimension 3 — Company Stage
match | borderline | mismatch | unknownDimension 4 — Geography
match | borderline | mismatch | unknownDimension 5 — Use Case Fit
strong_fit | moderate_fit | weak_fit | no_fit | unknownEach lead gets a company_qualification block:
{
"company_size": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"industry": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"stage": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"geography": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"use_case": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"company_verdict": "qualified | borderline | disqualified | insufficient_data"
}For each lead's contact person, evaluate against buyer persona criteria:
Dimension 1 — Title/Role Match
exact_match | close_match | adjacent | mismatch | unknownDimension 2 — Seniority Level
match | too_junior | too_senior | unknownDimension 3 — Department
match | adjacent | mismatch | unknownDimension 4 — Authority Type
economic_buyer — Can sign the checkchampion — Wants it, can influence the decisionuser — Would use it daily, can validate needevaluator — Tasked with research, limited decision powergatekeeper — Can block but not approveunknownDimension 5 — Right Person, Wrong Company (or Vice Versa)
right_company_wrong_person — this is a referral opportunityright_person_wrong_company — rare for inbound, but possible with job changersEach lead gets a person_qualification block:
{
"title_match": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"seniority": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"department": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"authority_type": "",
"person_verdict": "qualified | borderline | disqualified | insufficient_data",
"mismatch_type": "null | right_company_wrong_person | right_person_wrong_company"
}This step connects the company's likely needs to your product's actual capabilities. It goes deeper than Step 3's company-level use case check.
{
"inferred_intent": "",
"intent_source": "",
"product_fit": "strong | moderate | weak | unknown",
"product_fit_reasoning": "",
"implementation_feasibility": "easy | moderate | complex | unlikely",
"known_blockers": []
}Combine all dimensions into a final qualification verdict.
Composite Score Calculation:
| Dimension | Weight | Possible Values | |-----------|--------|-----------------| | Company Size | 15% | match=100, borderline=50, mismatch=0, unknown=30 | | Industry | 20% | match=100, adjacent=60, mismatch=0, unknown=30 | | Company Stage | 10% | match=100, borderline=50, mismatch=0, unknown=30 | | Geography | 10% | match=100, borderline=50, mismatch=0, unknown=30 | | Use Case Fit | 25% | strong=100, moderate=60, weak=20, no_fit=0, unknown=30 | | Person Title/Role | 15% | exact=100, close=75, adjacent=40, mismatch=0, unknown=30 | | Person Seniority | 5% | match=100, too_junior=20, too_senior=60, unknown=30 |
Hard overrides (bypass the score):
disqualified regardless of scorequalified regardless of score (but still show the full breakdown)Verdict thresholds:
qualified — Pursue activelyborderline — Qualified with caveats, may need manual reviewnear_miss — Not qualified now, but close enough to consider (referral or nurture)disqualified — Does not fit ICPSub-verdicts for routing:
qualified_hot — Score ≥ 75 AND Tier 1/2 urgency from triagequalified_warm — Score ≥ 75 AND Tier 3/4 urgencyborderline_review — Score 50-74, needs human judgment callnear_miss_referral — Score 30-49 AND right_company_wrong_person (referral opportunity)near_miss_nurture — Score 30-49, might fit in the futuredisqualified_polite — Score < 30, needs polite declinedisqualified_competitor — Competitor employeeexisting_customer_upsell — Existing customer with expansion signalEach lead gets:
{
"composite_score": 0-100,
"verdict": "",
"sub_verdict": "",
"top_qualification_reasons": [],
"top_disqualification_reasons": [],
"summary": "One sentence: why this lead is/isn't a fit"
}Produce a CSV with ALL input fields preserved plus qualification columns appended:
Core qualification columns:
qualification_verdict — qualified | borderline | near_miss | disqualifiedqualification_sub_verdict — qualified_hot | qualified_warm | borderline_review | near_miss_referral | near_miss_nurture | disqualified_polite | disqualified_competitor | existing_customer_upsellcomposite_score — 0-100summary — One sentence qualification reasoningPipeline check columns:
pipeline_status — new | existing_customer | in_pipeline | previously_contactedpipeline_detail — One sentence on the overlapsignal_flags — Any signal composite matchesCompany qualification columns:
company_size_score — match | borderline | mismatch | unknownindustry_score — match | adjacent | mismatch | unknownstage_score — match | borderline | mismatch | unknowngeography_score — match | borderline | mismatch | unknownuse_case_score — strong | moderate | weak | no_fit | unknownPerson qualification columns:
title_match_score — exact_match | close_match | adjacent | mismatch | unknownseniority_score — match | too_junior | too_senior | unknownauthority_type — economic_buyer | champion | user | evaluator | gatekeeper | unknownmismatch_type — null | right_company_wrong_person | right_person_wrong_companyUse case columns:
inferred_intent — What they seem to needproduct_fit — strong | moderate | weak | unknownimplementation_feasibility — easy | moderate | complex | unlikelyThe current working directory or wherever the user prefers (e.g., leads/inbound-qualified-[date].csv).
After producing the CSV, present a summary:
markdown## Inbound Lead Qualification: [Period] **Total leads processed:** X **Qualified:** X (Y%) — X hot, X warm **Borderline (manual review):** X (Y%) **Near miss:** X (Y%) — X referral opportunities, X nurture **Disqualified:** X (Y%) **Pipeline overlaps:** - Existing customers: X (route to CS) - Already in pipeline: X (coordinate with deal owner) - Previously contacted: X (now warmer — re-engage) **Top qualification reasons:** 1. [reason] — X leads 2. [reason] — X leads **Top disqualification reasons:** 1. [reason] — X leads 2. [reason] — X leads **Data quality:** - Leads with full data: X - Leads with partial data (some dimensions scored as 'unknown'): X - Leads needing enrichment: X **CSV saved to:** [path]
Lead with only an email (no name, no company):
insufficient_data, recommend enrichment or manual reviewSame company, multiple leads:
Contradictory signals:
right_company_wrong_person routes this to referral handling in disqualification-handlingBorderline calls:
Scoring with missing data:
insufficient_data regardless of score — recommend enrichment firstOther measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.