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 OneWave-AI/claude-skills --skill lead-scoring-modelgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OneWave-AI/claude-skillsWrote 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/onewave-ai/claude-skills/lead-scoring-model)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/onewave-ai/claude-skills/lead-scoring-model"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/onewave-ai/claude-skills/lead-scoring-model/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/onewave-ai/claude-skills/lead-scoring-model"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/onewave-ai/claude-skills/lead-scoring-model.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00076 | $0.00815 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00038 | $0.00407 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00081 |
Grade A, and why
lead-scoring-model 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 9d 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 — 40 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Lead Scoring Model Builder
Build a data-driven, custom lead scoring model calibrated to actual win/loss history, not generic best practices. Act as a revenue operations analyst and data scientist: every point value must trace to a correlation in the data, and the model must be simple enough that reps actually use it.
Contents
references/inputs.md— required, recommended, and optional inputs; the six-step analysis process; batch scoring mode; best practices; trigger phrases and example.references/output-template.md— the fulllead-scoring-model.mdstructure to generate (Sections 1-8, tables, confusion matrix, histogram).
Core Principles
- Data over intuition. Trace every point value to a measured lift. If data is insufficient for a dimension, state so explicitly rather than fabricating weights.
- Simplicity over complexity. Keep total dimensions to 20-30 signals maximum. A model reps use beats a perfect model they ignore.
- Continuous calibration. Build validation and recalibration methodology in from day one; every model degrades over time.
- No vanity scores. The model exists to prioritize rep time. If the score does not change rep behavior, it is not useful.
Workflow
- Gather inputs. Request ICP definition, historical win/loss data (50+ closed deals minimum, 200+ preferred), and a CRM export of current leads. Accept whatever subset is available and note gaps and their accuracy impact. See
references/inputs.mdfor the full input checklist. - Run the analysis process. Execute the six steps in order: data audit, win/loss pattern analysis, dimension construction, threshold calibration, validation, and implementation planning. Do not skip steps. See
references/inputs.mdfor the detailed procedure. - Build the four-dimension model. Construct Firmographic Fit, Behavioral Signals, Engagement Depth, and Intent Indicators, plus negative signals. Assign point values proportional to measured lift and cap each dimension so no single factor dominates.
- Calibrate thresholds. Plot won vs. lost score distributions, find the separation point, and define Hot/Warm/Cool/Cold tiers with expected conversion rates, SLAs, and volumes. Keep Hot small enough to work fully; keep Cold large enough to save rep time.
- Validate. Hold out 20-30% of historical data, score it, and report precision, recall, F1, AUC-ROC, and a confusion matrix. Analyze false positives and false negatives and iterate.
- Generate the deliverable. Write
lead-scoring-model.mdfollowingreferences/output-template.md. Fill every placeholder with data-derived values. Include Section 7 only when a batch of current leads was provided. - Score current leads (when provided). Load the model, map fields, score each lead, assign tiers, and produce the Section 7 tables ranked by score with recommended actions. See the Batch Scoring Mode in
references/inputs.md.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 40 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 566364c83c4b
lead-scoring-model is a skill published in the GitHub repository OneWave-AI/claude-skills (291 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 815 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
analytics-strategy
Design measurement frameworks including event taxonomy, KPI hierarchy, dashboard architecture, attribution models, and analytics implementation strategy. Use this skill whenever the user wants to plan analytics, design dashboards, build event taxonomies, define KPIs, set up tracking, or audit existing measurement.…
content-strategy
Develop a content strategy covering editorial positioning, content pillars, formats, calendar, governance, and topical authority planning. Use this skill whenever the user wants to plan a content program, define content pillars, build an editorial calendar, structure topic clusters, set up content governance, or align…
incident-response
Manage active production incidents through detection, triage, mitigation, communication, and resolution with structured roles and decision-making. Use this skill whenever the user has an active incident, a production issue, a service outage, a security incident, or needs to plan incident response procedures. Triggers…
stakeholder-communication
Communicate effectively with stakeholders across functions and seniority levels. Use this skill when writing status updates, preparing executive reviews, sharing technical decisions with non-technical audiences, managing up, communicating bad news, or designing the communication cadence for a project. Triggers on…
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.