lead-qualify
Skill97 starsChanged 32 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Assess known person or company facts against supplied ICP criteria, keeping commercial fit separate from contact eligibility.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- localoy-ai/localstacktheir own version, first seen Oct 2, 2026
- etrebels/claude-code-growth-ostheir own version, first seen Sep 14, 2026
- kronus-tech/kronustheir own version, first seen Mar 30, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- etrebels/claude-code-growth-os★ 21same name
- kronus-tech/kronus★ 4same name
- localoy-ai/localstack★ 2same 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 repository94 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- runxSkill
- adopt-skillSkill
- agencySkill
- answer-from-docsSkill
- attention-reviewSkill
- audit-receiptSkill
- brand-voiceSkill
- business-opsSkill
- chargeSkill
- chief-of-staffSkill
- cold-outreachSkill
- content-pipelineSkill
- contract-drafterSkill
- conversation-replySkill
- conversation-reviewSkill
- crm-cleanupSkill
- cve-auditSkill
- data-storeSkill
- data-subject-requestSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- diagnose-skill-runSkill
- dispute-respondSkill
- ecosystem-briefSkill
- extractSkill
- ghostwriteSkill
- github-pr-commentSkill
- github-pr-reviewSkill
- github-syncSkill
- google-analyticsSkill
- google-calendarSkill
- google-search-consoleSkill
- governed-outboundSkill
- helpdeskSkill
- incident-commanderSkill
- issue-intakeSkill
- issue-to-prSkill
- issue-triageSkill
- knowledge-routerSkill
- lead-enrichmentSkill
- least-privilegeSkill
- ledgerSkill
- list-hygiene-judgeSkill
- marketplace-invokeSkill
- meeting-followupSkill
- mock-chargeSkill
- mock-paySkill
- mock-refundSkill
- moltbookSkill
- n8n-handoffSkill
- nitrosendSkill
- nws-weather-forecastSkill
- open-meteo-weather-forecastSkill
- operator-inboxSkill
- ops-deskSkill
- organic-growthSkill
- policy-authorSkill
- postmortem-makerSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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 19
Keep missing and conflicting facts visible.
- Distinctive: line 29
Never replace the supplied ICP with generic scoring.
- Distinctive: line 40
No message, CRM update, enrollment or durable suppression change occurs.
- Distinctive: line 55
Do not invent fact fields, change mandatory criteria, score on sensitive traits, reinterpret contact eligibility or claim an external …
≈ “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
Lead Qualify
Decide whether one lead meets the actual ICP. Use lead-enrichment for factual
context; use this skill for commercial judgment; use cold-outreach for copy.
Qualification neither obtains consent nor creates a provider send plan.
Procedure
- Supply the enrichment packet, explicit ICP criteria, and a separately sourced
contact-eligibility decision. At least one criterion must be mandatory.
The eligibility names the subject it decides, with the same
refandkindas the enrichment subject. Eligibility decided for any other subject requests evidence before any criterion is assessed. - Keep missing and conflicting facts visible. Partial enrichment can support a criterion only through its admitted, non-conflicting facts.
- Assess every criterion as
met,not_metorunknown. Cite exact factual field names for each supported assessment and explain its relevance. - A failed mandatory criterion disqualifies the lead. An unknown mandatory criterion requests evidence. All mandatory criteria met establish fit; optional criteria explain strengths and weaknesses without overriding it.
- Return the fit independently from contact eligibility. A good fit with unknown or ineligible contact status remains a hold.
Never replace the supplied ICP with generic scoring. A company title is not buying authority, activity is not consent, and a matched work email is not permission to contact. Do not infer protected or sensitive personal traits.
Result and composition
lead_qualification records the exact enrichment digest, subject, criteria,
assessments, contact-eligibility evidence and a bounded next action:
prepare_outreach, request_evidence, resolve_contact_policy or stop.
Contact eligibility appears only when it was decided for that subject; another
subject's eligibility is left out, and its blocker remains.
No message, CRM update, enrollment or durable suppression change occurs.
A qualified result is context for cold-outreach#prepare, not send authority.
That skill requires its own exact recipient-bound eligibility/suppression
input. The selected sending capability performs native approval and delivery.
The calling application owns task assignment, refresh, follow-up timing and
continuing work.
Agent task contract
lead-qualify-assess
Apply each supplied criterion to the admitted facts. Return one assessment per
criterion ID, with status, rationale and exact fact_fields. Use unknown
when the required evidence is absent or contradictory; it may cite no field.
Do not invent fact fields, change mandatory criteria, score on sensitive traits,
reinterpret contact eligibility or claim an external action.
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.

