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 swan-gtm/gtm-skills --skill won-deal-icp-findergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/swan-gtm/gtm-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/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/won-deal-icp-finder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/won-deal-icp-finder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/won-deal-icp-finder/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/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/won-deal-icp-finder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/won-deal-icp-finder.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 | $0.00158 | $0.01473 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00079 | $0.00737 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00295 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00147 |
Grade A, and why
won-deal-icp-finder 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 — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Applies when the ICP on the slide was written before the revenue arrived. Produces a proven profile, derived from deals that closed, plus the search criteria to find more of them.
Most stated ICPs are aspirational
Teams write their ICP at the start, from the market they want. Then they close deals, and the deals quietly disagree — smaller, in an adjacent vertical, in a country nobody targeted. Nobody rewrites the slide, so prospecting keeps aiming at the market that never paid. This skill re-derives the profile from the ledger instead of the plan.
Select on money, not on stage names
The first move is picking which deals count, and it is where this play usually breaks.
The obvious approach — filter on a "Closed Won" stage — assumes a stage that a surprising number of pipelines don't have, or don't use consistently, or spell in another language. When it silently matches nothing, the fallback is worse: pull the most recent deals instead, which are the newest and emptiest ones, and the analysis runs on rows with no value in them.
Select on deal value being populated, over the last twelve months. A won signal, where one genuinely exists, is a filter you add on top — not the thing you rely on. Read the CRM's own conventions before pulling anything: which field actually holds value (the standard amount field is often abandoned in favour of a custom ARR or ACV one), and whether a won status exists at all. If you can't tell, ask one specific question and stop. Guessing here doesn't produce a slightly-off answer, it produces a confident answer about empty rows. See references/deal-data-extraction.md for the field-discovery sequence, the CSV fallback, and how to keep the pull bounded.
Do the arithmetic in code
Sums, revenue shares, concentration ratios, and frequency rankings across a hundred-odd deals are exactly the work a language model gets quietly and unfixably wrong — and a wrong ranking sends a team after the wrong accounts for a quarter.
scripts/analyze.py does the counting. It parses both European and US amount formats, applies the window, excludes lost deals always, detects a won signal when present, aggregates revenue per company, and returns segments and source rankings as JSON. Run it, then reason over what it returns. It refuses rather than improvises when it can't find a value field, a company, or any deal in the window — a refusal is a question for the user, not a problem to code around. references/analysis-engine.md covers the flags, the output schema, and how to read each block.
What ships with it
5 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 · 70 lines · 158 tokens per session scan A b805986ffa93
won-deal-icp-finder is a skill published in the GitHub repository swan-gtm/gtm-skills (150 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 158 tokens to every session and 1,473 once invoked, about $0.0008 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
afrexai-lead-hunter
Enterprise-grade B2B lead generation, enrichment, scoring, and outreach sequencing for AI agents. Find ideal prospects, enrich with verified data, score against your ICP, and generate personalized outreach — all autonomously.
reddit-leads
Discover B2B leads from Reddit using AI-powered lead scoring via reddapi.dev Leads API. Finds high-intent signals, scores them 0-100, and classifies by lead type (painpoint, solutionrequest, complaint, featurerequest, comparison). Perfect for competitor poaching, pain point discovery, and sales prospecting.
lead-gen
Use when building and qualifying a prospect list before anyone reaches out — a falsifiable ICP, named accounts/contacts from Apollo/ZoomInfo/Clay, deduped against the CRM, tiered by fit+intent+engagement. NOT writing or sending the outreach (that is cold-outreach), NOT tracking the deal after first contact (that is…
Lead Research Assistant
Research company and contact information for sales outreach.
intent-outreach
Run a local research, enrichment, and outreach-drafting workflow over company domains with bring-your-own provider keys. Use when a user wants a reviewed SDR campaign or grounded cold-email drafts. Trigger with "run an outreach campaign", "prospect these companies", or "/intent-outreach".
sdr-agent
Autonomous SDR that monitors pipeline, drafts outreach, qualifies inbound, and manages follow-ups.