CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

lead-enrichment

When the user wants to build data enrichment workflows, score leads against ICP, set up Clay waterfalls, or improve contact data quality. Also use when the user mentions 'enrichment,' 'data enrichment,' 'Clay,' 'waterfall enrichment,' 'ICP scoring,' 'lead scoring,' 'intent data,' 'contact verification,' 'Apollo,' 'ZoomInfo,' or 'data quality.' This skill covers lead enrichment waterfalls, ICP scoring frameworks, and contact verification systems. Do NOT use for technical implementation, code review, or software architecture.

66

Quality

79%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./packages/skills-catalog/skills/(gtm)/lead-enrichment/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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, actionable reference for B2B enrichment with strong concrete formulas, provider sequences, and verification gates. Its main weaknesses are token verbosity from inline rationale and heavy reference tables that belong in separate files, plus missing explicit retry feedback loops.

Suggestions

Move the provider comparison matrix, pricing tables, and credit-consumption tables into references/ (e.g. references/providers.md) to shrink the SKILL.md body and improve progressive_disclosure.

Trim inferable rationale such as 'Weight intent highest because timing beats targeting...' to raise conciseness; keep the formula and thresholds.

Add an explicit validate->fix->retry loop for verification failures (e.g. 'if confidence <0.85, re-enrich with an alternate provider and re-verify') to lift workflow_clarity to 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient structured tables of provider/pricing data Claude lacks, but it also includes inferable rationale ('Weight intent highest because timing beats targeting. A perfect-fit company with zero buying intent converts worse than a decent-fit company...') and the ~21KB body could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout—formulas ('ICP Score = (Firmographic Fit x 0.30) + (Technographic Fit x 0.30) + (Intent Score x 0.40)'), explicit provider sequencing, a sample Clay table column layout, and thresholds ('>0.85 = Deliverable')—with minor gaps since these are frameworks rather than copy-paste code.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The waterfall is explicitly sequenced with a verification gate ('Verification: Bounce check, catch-all flag, dedup; Threshold: >85% confidence = deliverable') plus checklists, but it lacks an explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loop for failures.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-sectioned body with one signaled reference ('read references/quick-reference.md when you need detailed reference'), but the large provider-comparison matrix, pricing tables, and credit tables are inlined in SKILL.md rather than split into the underused reference file.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

95%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, well-structured description that states capabilities concretely, enumerates natural trigger terms including tool names, and draws an explicit out-of-scope boundary. Minor abstraction in a couple of action verbs keeps specificity just short of perfect.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions ('build data enrichment workflows, score leads against ICP, set up Clay waterfalls, or improve contact data quality') with only minor coverage gaps, though verbs like 'build workflows' stay slightly more abstract than the fully concrete anchor-5 example.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('lead enrichment waterfalls, ICP scoring frameworks, and contact verification systems') and when ('When the user wants to...' / 'Also use when the user mentions...') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural trigger coverage including synonyms and tool names users actually say ('enrichment,' 'data enrichment,' 'Clay,' 'waterfall enrichment,' 'ICP scoring,' 'lead scoring,' 'intent data,' 'contact verification,' 'Apollo,' 'ZoomInfo,' 'data quality').

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with an explicit out-of-scope boundary ('Do NOT use for technical implementation, code review, or software architecture') that minimizes conflict with adjacent skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
tech-leads-club/agent-skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.