Agent skill
account-qualification
Systematically evaluate whether a target account is worth pursuing.
Filed under Calls, demos and discovery.
From kenny589/gtm-flywheel · 15 skills · 63 · pushed 2026-02-17
What it does when it runs
Systematically evaluate whether a target account is worth pursuing. Scoring frameworks, qualification criteria, and prioritization models that prevent wasted outreach on bad-fit prospects.
Read from the skill and the 0 files bundled beside it. A skill’s own description is written to be selected by an agent, so it describes the job and not the dependencies.
- Keys and connectors you must supply
- None found.
- Hosts it reaches
- No third-party host appears in the skill or its bundled files.
- Tool permissions it declares
- No
allowed-toolsin the frontmatter. It only issues instructions, so there is nothing to bound. - Actions present in the files
- None. Instructions only.
Install it
View source on GitHub ↗git clone --depth 1 --filter=blob:none --sparse https://github.com/kenny589/gtm-flywheel.git /tmp/gtm-flywheel git -C /tmp/gtm-flywheel sparse-checkout set "icp-research/account-qualification" mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills/account-qualification cp -R "/tmp/gtm-flywheel/icp-research/account-qualification/." ~/.claude/skills/account-qualification/
Picked up without a restart. A project skill of the same name is shadowed by your personal one. For one repository only, swap ~/.claude/skills for .claude/skills. Claude Code docs ↗
The folder is the same in every client that implements the format — 46 of them — so if yours is not above, only the destination changes.
The skill
Source on GitHub ↗Reproduced in full from kenny589/gtm-flywheel/blob/ba67446418663737a00274819dc2bf68c0da2c31/icp-research/account-qualification/SKILL.md, which is licensed MIT (repository). 1,647 words, 21 headings.
Account Qualification
When to Use
- Evaluating a new lead list before launching campaigns
- Prioritizing which accounts to target first from a large TAM
- Building qualification workflows for SDRs or AI enrichment pipelines
- Deciding whether to continue pursuing an account after no initial response
Framework
The Qualification Stack
Account qualification happens at three levels. Each level adds confidence but also adds cost (time, data credits, manual research). Match the depth to the deal value.
Level 1: Automated Screening (seconds per account)
Filters: firmographic + technographic data
Purpose: Remove obvious disqualifiers
Output: "Pass" or "Fail" — binary
Level 2: Enriched Scoring (minutes per account)
Adds: intent signals, hiring data, funding status
Purpose: Rank and tier qualified accounts
Output: Score (0-100) + Tier assignment
Level 3: Deep Qualification (30-60 min per account)
Adds: manual research, contact mapping, trigger analysis
Purpose: Build account plan for Tier 1 targets
Output: Full account brief + recommended approach
When to use each level:
- Level 1: Every lead, always. This is your spam prevention layer.
- Level 2: Leads that pass Level 1 (typically 40-60% of your list).
- Level 3: Only Tier 1 and high-value Tier 2 accounts (top 5-15% of your list).
Level 1: Automated Screening
Run every lead through these binary filters before any outreach:
Hard Disqualifiers (Instant Remove)
| Filter | Disqualify If | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Company size | Outside your serviceable range | Can't serve them / can't afford you |
| Industry | In an excluded vertical | Regulatory, ethical, or capability reasons |
| Geography | In a restricted market | Can't sell there (legal, timezone, language) |
| Existing customer | Already in your CRM as active | Don't cold email your own customers |
| Competitor | They are a direct competitor | Creates awkwardness, unlikely to buy |
| Email validity | Invalid/catch-all email | Hurts deliverability if you send |
| Do-not-contact list | Previously opted out or requested removal | Legal compliance (CAN-SPAM, GDPR) |
| Duplicate | Already in an active campaign | Don't double-email prospects |
Soft Disqualifiers (Flag for Review)
| Filter | Flag If | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Company age < 1 year | Very early stage, may not have budget | Move to nurture, not outbound |
| No website | Can't verify legitimacy | Research manually before including |
| Generic email only | No personal email found | Lower priority, but don't auto-remove |
| Title mismatch | Title doesn't match target persona | Check manually — titles vary widely |
Level 2: Enriched Scoring
For accounts that pass Level 1, build a composite score across four dimensions:
The FITS Framework
| Dimension | What It Measures | Weight | Scoring Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| F — Firmographic Fit | Does the company match your ICP? | 25% | 0-25 points |
| I — Intent Signals | Is the company in-market now? | 35% | 0-35 points |
| T — Technographic Match | Does their stack indicate fit? | 20% | 0-20 points |
| S — Structural Readiness | Can they actually buy and implement? | 20% | 0-20 points |
Total: 100 points
Firmographic Fit Scoring (25 points)
| Attribute | Tier 1 Points | Tier 2 Points | Tier 3 Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Company size in sweet spot | 8 | 5 | 2 |
| Revenue in target range | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| Industry is primary vertical | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| Growth stage matches | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| Geography is primary market | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Intent Signal Scoring (35 points)
| Signal | Points | Detection Method |
|---|---|---|
| Hiring for role your product serves | 10 | Job board monitoring |
| Recent funding (< 6 months) | 8 | Crunchbase, news alerts |
| Evaluating competitors (G2, review sites) | 10 | Intent data providers |
| Leadership change in target dept | 5 | LinkedIn alerts |
| Website visits (if available) | 7 | Website tracking |
| Content engagement (webinar, guide download) | 5 | Marketing automation |
Technographic Match Scoring (20 points)
| Signal | Points | Detection Method |
|---|---|---|
| Uses your integration partners | 6 | BuiltWith, tech detection |
| Uses a competitor (displacement opportunity) | 8 | Tech detection, G2 reviews |
| Recently adopted adjacent tech | 4 | Job descriptions, tech detection |
| Tech sophistication matches your buyer | 2 | Overall stack analysis |
Structural Readiness Scoring (20 points)
| Signal | Points | How to Assess |
|---|---|---|
| Has the right budget authority title | 6 | LinkedIn search |
| Team size indicates need | 4 | Company data, job postings |
| Not in a buying freeze (no layoffs) | 4 | News, LinkedIn |
| Short sales cycle indicators | 3 | Company stage, deal size |
| Decision committee is small (< 5 people) | 3 | Company size/stage proxy |
Tier Assignment
| Score Range | Tier | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 80-100 | Tier 1: Bullseye | Multi-channel, hyper-personalized |
| 60-79 | Tier 2: Strong Fit | Signal-based personalization |
| 40-59 | Tier 3: Good Fit | Bucket personalization |
| 20-39 | Tier 4: Stretch | Small batch test only |
| 0-19 | Disqualified | Remove from list |
Level 3: Deep Qualification (Tier 1 Only)
For your highest-value targets, build a full account brief:
Account Brief Template
ACCOUNT BRIEF: {{companyName}}
Qualification Score: {{score}}/100 (Tier {{tier}})
Date: {{date}}
Researcher: {{name}}
--- COMPANY OVERVIEW ---
Company: {{companyName}}
Website: {{url}}
Industry: {{industry}}
Size: {{employees}} employees
Revenue: {{revenue}} (estimated)
Stage: {{fundingStage}}
Founded: {{year}}
HQ: {{location}}
--- WHY THIS ACCOUNT ---
Primary signal: {{strongestSignal}}
Secondary signals: {{additionalSignals}}
Timing rationale: {{whyNow}}
--- CONTACT MAP ---
| Name | Title | Role in Deal | LinkedIn | Email |
|------|-------|-------------|----------|-------|
| ___ | ___ | Economic Buyer | ___ | ___ |
| ___ | ___ | Champion | ___ | ___ |
| ___ | ___ | Influencer | ___ | ___ |
--- RECOMMENDED APPROACH ---
Lead with persona: {{primaryContact}}
Opening angle: {{angle}}
Personalization hook: {{specificHook}}
Expected objection: {{likelyObjection}}
Proof point to use: {{bestCaseStudy}}
--- COMPETITIVE CONTEXT ---
Current solution: {{currentTool}}
Likely alternatives they'll evaluate: {{competitors}}
Our positioning: {{differentiator}}
Re-Qualification: When to Stop Pursuing
Not every qualified account will respond. Here's when to move on:
| Scenario | Action | When to Re-engage |
|---|---|---|
| No reply after full sequence (4 steps) | Pause. Move to nurture. | Re-engage only with a NEW signal |
| Replied "not interested" | Remove from active campaigns | Never re-engage on same angle. Wait 6+ months with new signal only |
| Replied "not now" | Add to time-based nurture | Re-engage in 30-60 days with new value |
| Replied "talk to someone else" (referral) | Contact the referral immediately | This is a win, not a rejection |
| Bounced email | Find alternate contact or remove | Only re-engage if you find a valid contact |
| Company went through major change (layoffs, merger) | Re-score the account | May upgrade or disqualify based on change |
Batch Qualification Workflow
For processing large lists (1,000+ leads) efficiently:
Step 1: Import raw list
↓
Step 2: Run Level 1 automated screening
→ Remove disqualified (typically 20-40% of list)
↓
Step 3: Enrich remaining leads
→ Add firmographic, technographic, intent data
↓
Step 4: Run Level 2 FITS scoring
→ Assign tiers (Tier 1-4 or DQ)
↓
Step 5: Review Tier 1 accounts
→ Build account briefs (Level 3)
→ Validate contact data
↓
Step 6: Route to campaigns
→ Tier 1 → Multi-channel sequence
→ Tier 2 → Signal-based email sequence
→ Tier 3 → Bucket personalization email sequence
→ Tier 4 → Test batch (validate before scaling)
Expected conversion through the funnel:
- Raw list: 5,000 leads
- After Level 1 screening: 3,000-4,000 (60-80% pass)
- Tier 1: 150-500 (5-10%)
- Tier 2: 600-1,200 (20-30%)
- Tier 3: 1,200-2,000 (40-50%)
- Tier 4 or DQ: remainder
Templates
Quick Qualification Scorecard
Account: {{companyName}}
Date: {{date}}
Level 1 Screening: [ ] PASS [ ] FAIL
Reason if fail: ___
FITS Score:
F (Firmographic): ___/25
I (Intent): ___/35
T (Technographic): ___/20
S (Structural): ___/20
TOTAL: ___/100
Tier Assignment: ___
Recommended Action: ___
Priority Signal: ___
Tips
- Qualification is an investment, not a cost. Every minute spent qualifying saves 10 minutes of wasted outreach on bad-fit accounts.
- The most common qualification mistake: over-weighting firmographics and under-weighting intent. A small company that's actively hiring for your use case is a better prospect than a large company with no buying signals.
- Build your qualification scoring model from closed-won data, not assumptions. Which attributes did your actual customers have when they bought? Those are your highest-weight factors.
- Intent signals decay fast. A job posting from 3 months ago is stale. A funding round from 6 months ago is old news. Recency matters — weight recent signals 2x over older ones.
- When in doubt, qualify OUT. It's better to email 1,000 highly qualified leads than 5,000 mediocre ones. Your reply rate, deliverability, and team efficiency all improve with a tighter list.
- Qualification criteria should be different for different campaign types. An ABM campaign (5-50 accounts) needs Level 3 qualification. A scaled outbound campaign (5,000 accounts) only needs Level 1-2.
Progressive disclosure: load industry-specific qualification benchmarks and data provider integrations only when qualifying accounts for a specific campaign.
Other skills for the same job
Different authors, same problem. Matched on the words in the skill name, across every library in the catalogue except this one.
- account-qualification by Salesably · 48
- gtm-account-qualification by rvanshur · 2
- find-lead-account-owner by zapier · 329
- ai-audit-account-report by zapier · 329
- named-account-trigger-radar by zapier · 329
- budget-extraction-qualification by louisblythe · 136
- lead-qualification by louisblythe · 136
- lead-qualification-logic by louisblythe · 136
Need help setting it up?
This page tells you what account-qualification does and what it needs. Cheetah builds the agent setup it runs inside: data, CRM, sequencing and the guardrails.
Book a call →The directory stays free. There is nothing gated behind this.