score

score is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from swan-gtm/gtm-skills. It costs 37 tokens per session (2,130 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

An account-qualification workflow that scores companies using fit, engagement, buying signals, potential deal size, and expansion potential.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it for account fit checks, lead tiers, inbound signals, pipeline rescoring, re-engagement, and expansion reviews.
Why use it?
It provides a consistent way to rank accounts instead of treating every signal or lead as equally important.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it for account fit checks, lead tiers, inbound signals, pipeline rescoring, re-engagement, and expansion reviews.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/score
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add swan-gtm/gtm-skills --skill score
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/swan-gtm/gtm-skills

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for score

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/score/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/score)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/score"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/score/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for score

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/score"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/score.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 37 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,130 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00037 $0.02130
Opus 5 $0.00018 $0.01065
Sonnet 5 $0.00007 $0.00426
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00213

Measured 9d ago against content hash ee7d669921ef, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

score 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.

skills/ido-goldberg/score/SKILL.md · 162 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 162 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Instructions

Setup state. Not yet configured for this org. Load the Readme sub-page and walk the user through configuring the qualification gate, persona authority, deal-size signals, tech-stack signals, signal weights, tier naming, and alert channels before scoring any accounts. (After setup completes, rewrite this paragraph via swan-update-skill to capture the configured rules so future runs proceed without re-checking state.)


The scoring frame

Every scoring run answers two questions:

Q1 — How strong is the intent or engagement? Assess signal quality, persona authority, and whether signals are first-party (the account doing something directly) vs third-party (external data about them). Person-level signals outweigh company-level signals. Recency matters.

Q2 — How large is the potential deal? Assess size, maturity, and expansion headroom against the org's deal-value signals. Reason from research until org-specific thresholds are baked in by Setup.

The tier is the intersection:

Large deal Small deal
Strong intent/engagement Gold Silver
Weak intent/engagement Silver Bronze

Bias toward visibility. When signals or deal size are ambiguous, default to the higher tier. Confidence in the lower tier should be explicit — not assumed. Reps refine from there; the agent's job is not to filter too aggressively.

Non-ICP accounts do not receive a tier — they exit before scoring.


Default signal hierarchy

Soft hierarchy — guides weighting, not numeric scoring. Override via signal weight preferences captured by Setup.

Key principle: first-party signals outweigh third-party. Person-level outweighs company-level. Weight signals in proportion to confidence that the person behind them is actually at the company and acting with intent.

  1. Direct inbound intent — form fill, demo request, direct reply to outreach. Deliberate and person-level.
  2. Meeting completed — both parties showed up. Extract topics, objections, stakeholder roles, new company intel not in public data.
  3. Product engagement — active usage. Proves behavior, not interest. Weight highest for product-led motions.
  4. Website visit — pricing and demo pages carry significantly more weight than blog posts. Depth and recency matter.
  5. Prior warm engagement — positive outreach reply, webinar/event registration, conference booth visit, hosted-event attendance. Stronger than a cold website visit; weaker than a demo request. Full weight within 90 days of the engagement; diminished beyond. A positive outreach reply sits at the strong end of this band; event registration at the weak end.
  6. Conversational interaction — weight by commercial specificity. A pricing question is strong; a generic intro is weak.
  7. Business event (third-party) — funding, leadership hire, tech-stack change, job postings. Signals a moment of change, not confirmed intent. Weight rises sharply when stacked with first-party signals.
  8. Social engagement — lowest weight. Meaningful only when stacked with other signals.

Read the full file on GitHub · 162 lines

Files

What ships with it

4 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.

Changes

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.

  1. 9d ago First seen · 162 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A ee7d669921ef

Subscribe to this mod's changes

score is a skill published in the GitHub repository swan-gtm/gtm-skills (153 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 2,130 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.