social-graph-ranker
Skill1 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Weighted social-graph ranking for warm intro discovery, bridge scoring, and network gap analysis across X and LinkedIn. Use when the user wants the reusable graph-ranking engine itself, not the broader outreach or network-maintenance workflow layered on top of it.
6 other projects use a version of this, 4 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- renepf/claude-skillsedited, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- davidanthonyn/claude-skillsword for word, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- gongyijie85/dsh-eccedited, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- Fmarzochi/EGCedited, first seen Sep 16, 2026
- SamuelNDCE/claude-super-skill-libraryword for word, first seen Aug 1, 2026
- vivekkhimani/gtm-tools-templateedited, first seen Jul 2, 2026
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- SamuelNDCE/claude-super-skill-library★ 1100% same
- davidanthonyn/claude-skills★ 0100% same
Edited · 4
- Fmarzochi/EGC★ 6199% same
- gongyijie85/dsh-ecc★ 899% same
- vivekkhimani/gtm-tools-template★ 194% same
- renepf/claude-skills★ 099% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository269 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .codex/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- examples/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .cursor/rules/common-agents.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-development-workflow.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-git-workflow.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-performance.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-testing.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/golang-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/golang-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/golang-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/golang-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/golang-testing.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/kotlin-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/kotlin-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/kotlin-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/kotlin-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/kotlin-testing.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/php-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/php-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/php-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/php-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/php-testing.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/python-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/python-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/python-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/python-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/python-testing.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/swift-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/swift-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/swift-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/swift-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/swift-testing.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/typescript-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/typescript-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/typescript-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/typescript-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/typescript-testing.mdCursor rule
- agent-introspection-debuggingSkill
- agent-sortSkill
- api-designSkill
- article-writingSkill
- backend-patternsSkill
- brand-voiceSkill
- bun-runtimeSkill
- claude-apiSkill
- coding-standardsSkill
- content-engineSkill
- crosspostSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- dmux-workflowsSkill
- documentation-lookupSkill
- e2e-testingSkill
- eval-harnessSkill
- everything-claude-code-conventionsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 2 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
2
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 11
Use this when the user needs to:
- Common: line 28
Do not use this by itself when the user really wants:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Social Graph Ranker
Canonical weighted graph-ranking layer for network-aware outreach.
Use this when the user needs to:
- rank existing mutuals or connections by intro value
- map warm paths to a target list
- measure bridge value across first- and second-order connections
- decide which targets deserve warm intros versus direct cold outreach
- understand the graph math independently from
lead-intelligenceorconnections-optimizer
When To Use This Standalone
Choose this skill when the user primarily wants the ranking engine:
- "who in my network is best positioned to introduce me?"
- "rank my mutuals by who can get me to these people"
- "map my graph against this ICP"
- "show me the bridge math"
Do not use this by itself when the user really wants:
- full lead generation and outbound sequencing -> use
lead-intelligence - pruning, rebalancing, and growing the network -> use
connections-optimizer
Inputs
Collect or infer:
- target people, companies, or ICP definition
- the user's current graph on X, LinkedIn, or both
- weighting priorities such as role, industry, geography, and responsiveness
- traversal depth and decay tolerance
Core Model
Given:
T= weighted target setM= your current mutuals / direct connectionsd(m, t)= shortest hop distance from mutualmto targettw(t)= target weight from signal scoring
Base bridge score:
B(m) = Σ_{t ∈ T} w(t) · λ^(d(m,t) - 1)Where:
λis the decay factor, usually0.5- a direct path contributes full value
- each extra hop halves the contribution
Second-order expansion:
B_ext(m) = B(m) + α · Σ_{m' ∈ N(m) \\ M} Σ_{t ∈ T} w(t) · λ^(d(m',t))Where:
N(m) \\ Mis the set of people the mutual knows that you do notαdiscounts second-order reach, usually0.3
Response-adjusted final ranking:
R(m) = B_ext(m) · (1 + β · engagement(m))Where:
engagement(m)is normalized responsiveness or relationship strengthβis the engagement bonus, usually0.2
Interpretation:
- Tier 1: high
R(m)and direct bridge paths -> warm intro asks - Tier 2: medium
R(m)and one-hop bridge paths -> conditional intro asks - Tier 3: low
R(m)or no viable bridge -> direct outreach or follow-gap fill
Scoring Signals
Weight targets before graph traversal with whatever matters for the current priority set:
- role or title alignment
- company or industry fit
- current activity and recency
- geographic relevance
- influence or reach
- likelihood of response
Weight mutuals after traversal with:
- number of weighted paths into the target set
- directness of those paths
- responsiveness or prior interaction history
- contextual fit for making the intro
Workflow
- Build the weighted target set.
- Pull the user's graph from X, LinkedIn, or both.
- Compute direct bridge scores.
- Expand second-order candidates for the highest-value mutuals.
- Rank by
R(m). - Return:
- best warm intro asks
- conditional bridge paths
- graph gaps where no warm path exists
Output Shape
SOCIAL GRAPH RANKING
====================
Priority Set:
Platforms:
Decay Model:
Top Bridges
- mutual / connection
base_score:
extended_score:
best_targets:
path_summary:
recommended_action:
Conditional Paths
- mutual / connection
reason:
extra hop cost:
No Warm Path
- target
recommendation: direct outreach / fill graph gapRelated Skills
lead-intelligenceuses this ranking model inside the broader target-discovery and outreach pipelineconnections-optimizeruses the same bridge logic when deciding who to keep, prune, or addbrand-voiceshould run before drafting any intro request or direct outreachx-apiprovides X graph access and optional execution paths
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

