Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add himanshusaleria/gtm-engine --skill validate-leadgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/himanshusaleria/gtm-engineWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/himanshusaleria/gtm-engine/validate-lead)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/himanshusaleria/gtm-engine/validate-lead"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/himanshusaleria/gtm-engine/validate-lead.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.01097 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00549 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
validate-lead scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/validate-lead — ICP Lead Validation
Validate whether a company is an ICP fit based on research and your ICP scoring criteria.
Usage
/validate-lead {company} [job_url]— Validate a single company/validate-lead --batch— Validate unreviewed companies from your outreach sheet/validate-lead --improve "learning"— Add a learning to improve future validations
Prerequisites
config/config.yamlwith ICP section filled (scoring criteria, no-go rules, tiers)- Recommended:
my-context/icp-definition.mdfilled (via/setup --icp)
Default Mode Flow
Step 1: Load Context (parallel reads)
Read these files in parallel:
~/.claude/skills/validate-lead/learnings.mdmy-context/icp-definition.md(if exists)config/config.yaml-> icp section
Step 2: Research the Company (parallel where possible)
- If job URL provided: WebFetch the listing -> extract role title, tech stack, requirements, company description
- WebSearch
"{company} what they do product"-> understand what they build - WebSearch
"{company} employees team size"-> estimate headcount - If LinkedIn URL provided: WebFetch it
Step 3: Apply No-Go Rules (check FIRST before scoring)
Read config.icp.no_go_rules. Auto-reject if ANY rule matches.
If No-Go triggered -> output verdict immediately with reason. Skip scoring.
Step 4: Score on ICP Scale
Use config.icp.scoring_criteria for criteria. Each criterion scored 0 or 1.
Sum scores and apply tier thresholds from config.icp.tiers:
- Score >=
config.icp.tiers.core= Core ICP - Score >=
config.icp.tiers.broader= Broader ICP - Below broader threshold = Not ICP
Step 5: Output
Present results in this format:
## {Company Name} — Lead Validation
### Verdict
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| ICP Fit? | Yes / No |
| Action | Go ahead / No go |
| Summary | {one-line summary} |
### Research Summary
- **What they do:** ...
- **Headcount:** ...
- **Geography:** ...
- **Product type:** ...
- **Job listing signals:** ... (if applicable)
### ICP Scorecard ({X}/{max})
| # | Criterion | Score | Reasoning |
|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
| 1 | {criteria from config} | 0/1 | ... |
| 2 | ... | 0/1 | ... |
### Caveats
- ...
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 8d ago First seen · 142 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 8949a27bfdd1
validate-lead is a skill published in the GitHub repository himanshusaleria/gtm-engine (18 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,097 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
agb-begriff-vorformuliert-305
Für AGB Begriff Vorformuliert 305: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: agb-begriff-vorformuliert-305.
agb-rechtswahl-schweizer-recht-rom-i
Für AGB Rechtswahl Schweizer Recht Rom I: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: agb-rechtswahl-schweizer-recht-rom-i.
blue-pencil-board-agb-bonitaetspruefung-bonus
Für Blue Pencil und Geltungserhaltende Reduktion: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Tatbestands- oder Anspruchsmatrix.
haftungsdeckel-fuer-daten-und-modelldienste-pruefen
Bewertet Haftungshöchstbeträge bei Datenverlust, fehlerhaften Modellausgaben und Ausfällen digitaler Dienste anhand konkreter Schadensszenarien. Liefert eine Entscheidungsvorlage mit Risikobeträgen, Ausnahmen und Freigabebedarf.
klauselinhalt-und-verbote-pruefen
Prüft eine AGB-Klausel anhand von Kontrollfähigkeit, gesetzlichen Klauselverboten und Interessenabwägung. Für B2C und B2B; liefert ein Klauselvotum mit Leitbild, Gegenposition und konkreter Rechtsfolge.