inbound-lead-enrichment

Fills in missing data for inbound leads — researches the company, identifies the person's role and seniority, finds other stakeholders at the company, checks for existing CRM relationships, and updates the lead record. Produces enriched lead data ready for qualification or outreach. Tool-agnostic.

Quality

62%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/lead-generation/composites/inbound-lead-enrichment/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A thorough, highly actionable enrichment workflow with a clear step sequence and concrete output schemas, but it is verbose with redundancy and monolithic — it lacks the validation feedback loop expected for batch/destructive CRM writes and does not split detail into reference files.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation/verification checkpoint before the Step 'Update Protocol' CRM writes — e.g. review enriched records and confirm no duplicate-overwrite before writing — to satisfy the batch/destructive feedback-loop expectation.

Dedupe repeated guidance: personal-email-domain handling and research-depth-by-tier appear in both the step bodies and the Edge Cases section; consolidate to one location.

Move large reusable detail (JSON output schemas, seniority inference rules, field tables) into one-level-deep reference files (e.g. references/output-schemas.md) linked from the overview to improve progressive disclosure.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly domain-specific and earned (field tables, seniority rules, CRM checks) rather than concepts Claude already knows, but at ~490 lines it carries redundancy — personal-email handling and research-depth are repeated across Step 0/Step 2 and the Edge Cases section — so it could be tightened.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance: exact required/valuable/bonus field lists, primary/fallback source tables, full JSON output schemas per step, and explicit seniority title-matching rules — highly actionable for an instruction/orchestration skill.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 6-step sequence is clearly ordered with an architecture diagram and per-step outputs, and Step 1 has a Human Checkpoint, but for a batch + CRM-write operation the only validation gate is a cost-approval checkpoint; there is no explicit verify-before-CRM-write feedback loop, which caps clarity at 2.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clear sections, but it is a large monolithic SKILL.md with no bundle files and no references; content that would benefit from being split (detailed JSON schemas, seniority rules, field tables) is inline rather than one-level-deep referenced files.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

60%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is specific and third-person, listing several concrete enrichment actions, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which caps completeness and weakens trigger-term quality and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrasing, e.g. 'Use when a user says "enrich these leads", "fill in the missing data", or when inbound leads have incomplete company/title fields.'

Surface the natural trigger terms users would actually say ('enrich leads', 'fill in missing lead data', 'research inbound leads') to improve trigger-term coverage.

Add a one-line disambiguator that distinguishes this from sibling skills (e.g. vs. inbound-lead-qualification/triage) to reduce conflict risk.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'researches the company, identifies the person's role and seniority, finds other stakeholders... checks for existing CRM relationships, and updates the lead record' — matching the anchor for several specific concrete actions.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers 'what' with a list of actions, but 'when' is entirely missing — there is no 'Use when...' clause, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains some relevant natural terms ('inbound leads', 'missing data', 'CRM', 'outreach') but lacks common variations and any explicit 'Use when...' trigger phrasing a user would say like 'enrich these leads'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The inbound-lead-enrichment niche (stakeholder discovery, CRM relationship check) is fairly specific, but it overlaps with sibling lead skills (qualification, triage) and lacks explicit triggers to disambiguate, so it could still overlap with similar skills.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: gooseworks-ai/goose-skills
Path: skills/lead-generation/composites/inbound-lead-enrichment/SKILL.md
Commit: 8866b2a

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.