inbound-lead-qualification

Qualifies inbound leads against full ICP criteria — company size, industry, use case fit, role/seniority of the person. Checks CRM and existing customer base for duplicates and existing relationships. Outputs a scored CSV with qualification status, reasoning, and pipeline overlap flags. Tool-agnostic — works with any CRM, enrichment tool, or data source.

Quality

64%

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-qualification/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A thorough, well-structured qualification workflow with strong actionable detail, but it is a long monolithic document with internal redundancy, no output-validation step for its batch CSV write, and no progressive disclosure via reference files.

Suggestions

Add an output-validation step after Step 7 (e.g. re-open the CSV, confirm row count matches the input lead count and required columns are populated) to introduce a verify→fix feedback loop and lift workflow clarity past the batch-operation cap.

Split the detailed JSON config (Step 0), the scoring table/verdict logic (Step 6), and the edge-case catalog into reference files under references/, keeping SKILL.md a concise overview that links one level deep.

De-duplicate use case fit (Step 3 Dimension 5 vs Step 5) and the sub-verdict enumeration (Step 6 vs Step 7 columns) to reduce length and redundancy.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly substantive domain content (scoring tables, output schemas, edge cases) rather than concepts Claude already knows, but ~440 lines with real redundancy — use case fit is evaluated in both Step 3 Dimension 5 and again in Step 5, and sub-verdicts are enumerated in Step 6 then re-listed as CSV columns in Step 7 — so it could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	Highly concrete for an instruction-only skill: an exact JSON config structure, a numeric scoring-weight table, explicit verdict thresholds, enum-valued CSV column specs, and per-edge-case handling rules; falls just short of 5 because there are no worked end-to-end examples showing the rules applied to a sample lead.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps 0–7 are clearly sequenced with an architecture diagram and several input-side checkpoints (gap report, human checkpoint for missing fields, the >3-unknowns insufficient_data guard), but this is a batch operation writing a CSV and there is no output-validation feedback loop (verify the written CSV → fix → retry), so the batch-operation cap holds at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist (references/scripts/assets all absent) and the entire ~440-line skill is inlined in SKILL.md with good section headers but zero external references; the detailed JSON schemas, scoring tables, and edge-case catalog are reference-like content that could be split into separate files to keep SKILL.md a lean overview, so it sits at 'some structure, content that should be separate is inline'.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A strong, specific description that clearly conveys what the skill does and its domain, but it omits an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, capping its completeness. Adding a trigger sentence would lift both completeness and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Append a 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases, e.g. 'Use when the user says "qualify these inbound leads", "check if these leads are ICP", or "score my inbound" after triage.'

Add a brief disambiguator in the description (e.g. 'Not fast-pass triage — use inbound-lead-triage for that') to reduce overlap risk with sibling skills.

Include a couple of natural synonyms such as 'lead scoring' or 'ICP fit' to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions across the full pipeline — "Qualifies inbound leads against full ICP criteria — company size, industry, use case fit, role/seniority", "Checks CRM and existing customer base for duplicates and existing relationships", and "Outputs a scored CSV with qualification status, reasoning, and pipeline overlap flags", giving comprehensive coverage.	5 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is explicit and detailed, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance in the description; per the rubric a missing when-clause caps completeness at 3, and the 'when' is only weakly implied (when you have inbound leads to qualify).	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural sales-domain terms a user would say ("qualify inbound leads", "scored CSV", "ICP criteria", "CRM"), but misses common phrasings like "lead scoring", "check if these leads fit", or "score my inbound" that the body's own When-to-Load section surfaces.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is clear (thorough ICP qualification producing a scored CSV) and tool-agnostic framing is distinct, but it risks overlap with sibling skills like inbound-lead-triage and inbound-lead-enrichment, which the description does not explicitly disambiguate (the "Not a fast-pass triage" distinction lives only in the body).	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 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-qualification/SKILL.md
Commit: 2523432

Reviewed: 7 days 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.