agentleFS
prosyo-aiprosyo-ai/gtm-skill/skills/lead-scoring-model/SKILL.md

lead-scoring-model

Skill13 starsChanged 21 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use this skill when you need a lead scoring model that sales trusts: inbound leads pile up unworked, marketing and sales argue about MQL quality, or reps chase the wrong leads first. Designs a two-axis model (fit and engagement) from your won and lost data, sets point values and decay, defines the handoff threshold and the SLA, and includes the test that proves the model works. Produces a documented scoring model ready to configure in any CRM or marketing system.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this when the question is "which leads should sales call first?".

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    MUST keep fit and engagement as separate scores.

    line 62
  3. Distinctive:

    MUST include decay and negative scoring.

    line 63
  4. Distinctive:

    MUST backtest before going live.

    line 64
  5. Distinctive:

    NEVER route a direct demo or pricing request through scoring delays.

    line 65

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Use this when the question is "which leads should sales call first?". It produces a scoring model with point tables, a threshold and a validation test, documented well enough that anyone can configure it.

Inputs

  • 6 to 12 months of leads with outcome: became an opportunity, won, or went nowhere.
  • Firmographic and role data on each lead.
  • Engagement events: form fills, page visits, email replies, event attendance, product sign-ups.
  • Sales capacity: how many leads a week the team can work properly.

The play

1. Two axes, never one

  • Fit (who they are): role, company size, industry, region, stack. Changes rarely.
  • Engagement (what they did): actions, weighted by intent, decaying over time.

A single blended number lets a student who downloads ten ebooks outrank a VP who visited pricing once.

2. Derive points from data

For each attribute and action, compare the opportunity rate of leads that have it with the base rate. Points roughly follow the lift: an action with 4x the base opportunity rate earns about twice the points of one with 2x. Read references/scoring-tables.md for starter tables and the lift method.

3. Add negative scores and decay

Subtract for students, competitors, personal emails, job seekers and unsubscribes. Halve engagement points every 30 days so old activity does not keep a lead hot.

4. Set the threshold from capacity

Choose the fit and engagement cut-offs that send sales roughly the number of leads they can work within the SLA. A threshold that produces 300 leads a week for a team that can work 80 trains reps to ignore scores.

5. Define the handoff

  • High fit + high engagement: route to sales, first touch within 1 business hour (inbound) or same day.
  • High fit + low engagement: targeted outbound or nurture.
  • Low fit + high engagement: self-serve path or marketing nurture.
  • Low fit + low engagement: no action.

High-intent actions such as a demo request or pricing contact bypass scoring entirely.

6. Validate before launch

Backtest on last quarter: the top 20% of scored leads should hold at least 50% of the opportunities. Then review monthly.

What good looks like

  • Sales can explain any score from the point table in 30 seconds.
  • The top-scored decile converts to opportunity at 3x or more the average.
  • Demo requests never wait for a score.
  • The common mistake is guessing points in a meeting ("a webinar feels like 10 points") instead of deriving them from outcomes.

Rules

  • MUST keep fit and engagement as separate scores.
  • MUST include decay and negative scoring.
  • MUST backtest before going live.
  • NEVER route a direct demo or pricing request through scoring delays.

Example prompts

  • "Build a lead scoring model from this export of 4,000 leads with outcomes."
  • "Our MQLs convert at 3%. Redesign the scoring so sales trusts it."
  • "Set a threshold that sends my 5 reps about 60 leads a week."

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.