lead-scorer
Skill0 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Score and prioritize your leads with AI
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jqaisystems/jqai-ai-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- koinod/koino-skillsword for word, first seen May 22, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- koinod/koino-skills★ 7100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- jqaisystems/jqai-ai-skills★ 3same name
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 repository79 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- ad-first-marketingSkill
- afrexai-community-growth-engineSkill
- agent-fleet-statusSkill
- agentgramSkill
- ai-cold-emailSkill
- answeroverflowSkill
- answeroverflowSkill
- api-gatewaySkill
- apple-notesSkill
- autonomous-operatorSkill
- autonomous-revenueSkill
- brand-analyzerSkill
- brand-identitySkill
- brand-operatorSkill
- browser-useSkill
- byteroverSkill
- calendlySkill
- clawdcursorSkill
- clawd-provisionerSkill
- client-acquisitionSkill
- cold-email-writerSkill
- cold-outreachSkill
- Community ManagerSkill
- community-mod-packSkill
- competitive-ads-extractorSkill
- competitor-analyzerSkill
- content-engineSkill
- content-qa-scorerSkill
- content-repurposeSkill
- cron-automatorSkill
- daily-brief-generatorSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- elite-longterm-memorySkill
- email-responderSkill
- fathom-tele-tvSkill
- fleet-commanderSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- gogSkill
- himalayaSkill
- imsgSkill
- internet-marketingSkill
- klaviyoSkill
- knowledge-extractorSkill
- koino-frontendSkill
- lead-research-assistantSkill
- macos-calendarSkill
- marketing-drafterSkill
- marketingSkill
- marketing-strategy-pmmSkill
- master-marketingSkill
- meeting-prepSkill
- moltbookSkill
- moltguardSkill
- objection-destroyerSkill
- ontologySkill
- pipeline-autopilotSkill
- marketing-ideasSkill
- proactive-agentSkill
- proposal-generatorSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 213
If you provide your Ideal Customer Profile, scoring becomes dramatically more accurate:
- Distinctive: line 239
Calibrate to your close rate: If your HOT leads aren't closing at 30%+, your scoring weights need adjustment.
- Distinctive: line 241
Trust the risks section: If the score is high but the risks are serious, investigate before investing heavy time.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
AI Lead Scorer
Score any lead 0-100 and get a clear action plan. Stop guessing which leads to call first -- let data and pattern matching decide.
Usage
Provide lead information in any format. The more you provide, the better the score:
Required Fields
| Field | Example |
| Lead Name | "Marcus Webb" |
| Company | "TerraForce Industrial" |
| Source | "Inbound -- downloaded pricing PDF" |
Optional Fields (improve accuracy)
| Field | Example |
| Title/Role | "Director of Operations" |
| Company Size | "85 employees, ~$12M revenue" |
| Industry | "Industrial equipment manufacturing" |
| Interaction History | "Opened 3 emails, attended webinar, asked about pricing" |
| Budget Signals | "Mentioned Q2 budget approval" |
| Timeline | "Looking to implement by June" |
| Pain Points | "Current system requires manual data entry across 4 platforms" |
| Competition | "Currently evaluating us and 2 competitors" |
| Notes | "Referred by existing client. Seemed frustrated with current vendor." |
Scoring Framework
Category Weights (default)
| Category | Weight | What It Measures |
| Fit | 30% | How well do they match your ideal customer? |
| Intent | 25% | How much buying behavior have they shown? |
| Authority | 20% | Can this person actually make or influence the decision? |
| Timing | 15% | Is there urgency or a deadline driving them? |
| Engagement | 10% | How actively are they interacting with you? |
You can customize these weights. Just specify your preferred weights and they'll be applied.
Fit Score (0-30 points)
| Signal | Points |
| Company size matches ICP | +5-10 |
| Industry is in your sweet spot | +5-10 |
| They have the problem you solve | +5-10 |
| Geography/market alignment | +2-5 |
| Tech stack compatibility (if relevant) | +2-5 |
| Revenue range matches your pricing | +3-5 |
Deductions:
| Signal | Points |
| Company too small for your pricing | -5 to -10 |
| Industry you've never served | -3 to -5 |
| No clear problem match | -5 to -10 |
Intent Score (0-25 points)
| Signal | Points |
| Requested pricing/proposal | +10-15 |
| Mentioned specific timeline | +5-10 |
| Compared you to competitors (means they're shopping) | +5-8 |
| Asked detailed product/service questions | +5-8 |
| Downloaded bottom-of-funnel content | +3-5 |
| Visited pricing page (if tracked) | +3-5 |
| Mentioned budget availability | +5-10 |
Deductions:
| Signal | Points |
| "Just researching" with no timeline | -5 to -10 |
| Only engaged with top-of-funnel content | -3 to -5 |
| Ghosted after initial contact | -5 to -8 |
Authority Score (0-20 points)
| Signal | Points |
| C-suite or business owner | +15-20 |
| VP or Director level | +10-15 |
| Manager with budget authority | +8-12 |
| Individual contributor (but champion) | +5-8 |
| Explicitly said "I make this decision" | +5 bonus |
| Mentioned needing board/committee approval | -3 to -5 |
| Intern or junior role | -5 to -10 |
Timing Score (0-15 points)
| Signal | Points |
| Actively in buying process NOW | +12-15 |
| Deadline mentioned (contract renewal, fiscal year, event) | +8-12 |
| "Next quarter" | +5-8 |
| "Sometime this year" | +3-5 |
| No timeline mentioned | +1-2 |
| "Maybe next year" | 0 |
Engagement Score (0-10 points)
| Signal | Points |
| Responded within 24 hours | +3-5 |
| Multiple touchpoints (email + call + event) | +3-5 |
| Referred by existing customer | +5 (max) |
| Engaged with 3+ pieces of content | +2-4 |
| Single interaction only | +1-2 |
| Has not responded to outreach | 0-1 |
Output Format
For each lead, deliver:
1. Score Summary
LEAD: [Name] at [Company]
SCORE: [X]/100
CATEGORY: [HOT / WARM / COLD]
CONFIDENCE: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW] (based on how much info was provided)Category thresholds:
- HOT (75-100): Contact within 24 hours. High fit, strong intent, decision-maker, urgent timeline.
- WARM (40-74): Nurture actively. Good potential but missing one or more key signals.
- COLD (0-39): Low priority. Add to nurture sequence but don't spend active selling time.
2. Score Breakdown
Fit: [X]/30 -- [1-sentence explanation]
Intent: [X]/25 -- [1-sentence explanation]
Authority: [X]/20 -- [1-sentence explanation]
Timing: [X]/15 -- [1-sentence explanation]
Engagement: [X]/10 -- [1-sentence explanation]3. Key Signals
List the top 3 positive signals and top 3 risk factors:
Positive:
- [Signal 1]
- [Signal 2]
- [Signal 3]
Risk Factors:
- [Risk 1]
- [Risk 2]
- [Risk 3]
4. Action Brief
Based on the score, provide a specific action plan:
For HOT leads:
- Recommended next step (specific, not generic)
- Talking points tailored to their pain points
- Potential objections to prepare for
- Suggested timeline for follow-up
For WARM leads:
- What information is missing that would upgrade them to HOT
- Specific nurture actions (content to send, questions to ask)
- Trigger events to watch for
- Re-score date recommendation
For COLD leads:
- Why they scored low (honest assessment)
- Whether they're worth keeping in the pipeline at all
- Automated nurture recommendation
- Conditions that would trigger re-evaluation
Batch Scoring
You can score multiple leads at once. Provide a list and receive:
- Individual scores for each lead
- A priority ranking (sorted by score, descending)
- A pipeline summary:
- Total leads scored
- HOT / WARM / COLD distribution
- Average score
- Top 3 leads to contact TODAY
Customization
Custom ICP Definition
If you provide your Ideal Customer Profile, scoring becomes dramatically more accurate:
My ICP:
- Industry: [e.g., "B2B SaaS, $5M-$50M ARR"]
- Company size: [e.g., "50-500 employees"]
- Decision maker: [e.g., "VP Sales or CRO"]
- Budget range: [e.g., "$2K-$10K/month"]
- Key pain: [e.g., "Manual reporting takes 20+ hours/week"]
- Disqualifiers: [e.g., "Under $1M revenue, no dedicated sales team"]Custom Weight Adjustment
Override default weights for your sales motion:
- High-ticket enterprise: Increase Authority to 30%, reduce Engagement to 5%
- Self-serve product: Increase Intent to 35%, reduce Authority to 10%
- Referral-heavy business: Increase Engagement to 20%, reduce Timing to 10%
Scoring Accuracy Tips
- More data = better scores. A lead with just a name and company will get a LOW confidence score. That's honest, not a bug.
- Re-score after new interactions. A WARM lead who requests pricing should be re-scored immediately.
- Calibrate to your close rate. If your HOT leads aren't closing at 30%+, your scoring weights need adjustment.
- Don't ignore COLD leads entirely. 10% of today's COLD leads become next quarter's HOT leads. Automate nurture, don't delete.
- Trust the risks section. If the score is high but the risks are serious, investigate before investing heavy time.
Powered by KOINO Capital -- AI systems that fill your pipeline and close your deals.
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.

