Inbound Lead Qualification
Takes a set of inbound leads and validates each against your full ICP criteria. Not a fast-pass triage (that's
) — this is the thorough qualification step that determines whether a lead is genuinely worth pursuing, and produces a scored CSV for the team.
When to Auto-Load
Load this composite when:
- User says "qualify these inbound leads", "check if these leads are ICP", "score my inbound"
- An upstream triage has been completed and leads need deeper qualification
- User has a batch of leads and wants a qualified/disqualified verdict on each
Architecture
[Inbound Leads] → Step 1: Load ICP & Config → Step 2: CRM/Pipeline Check → Step 3: Company Qualification → Step 4: Person Qualification → Step 5: Use Case Fit → Step 6: Score & Verdict → Step 7: Output CSV
Step 0: Configuration (Once Per Client)
On first run, establish the ICP definition and CRM access. Save to
clients/<client-name>/config/lead-qualification.json
.
json
{
"icp_definition": {
"company_size": {
"min_employees": null,
"max_employees": null,
"sweet_spot": "",
"notes": ""
},
"industry": {
"target_industries": [],
"excluded_industries": [],
"notes": ""
},
"use_case": {
"primary_use_cases": [],
"secondary_use_cases": [],
"anti_use_cases": [],
"notes": ""
},
"company_stage": {
"target_stages": [],
"excluded_stages": [],
"notes": ""
},
"geography": {
"target_regions": [],
"excluded_regions": [],
"notes": ""
}
},
"buyer_personas": [
{
"name": "",
"titles": [],
"seniority_levels": [],
"departments": [],
"is_economic_buyer": false,
"is_champion": false,
"is_user": false
}
],
"hard_disqualifiers": [],
"hard_qualifiers": [],
"crm_access": {
"tool": "Supabase | HubSpot | Salesforce | CSV export | none",
"access_method": "",
"tables_or_objects": []
},
"existing_customer_source": {
"tool": "Supabase | CRM | CSV | none",
"access_method": ""
},
"qualification_prompt_path": "path/to/lead-qualification/prompt.md or null"
}
If capability already has a saved qualification prompt: Reference it directly — don't rebuild ICP criteria from scratch.
On subsequent runs: Load config silently.
Step 1: Load ICP Criteria & Parse Leads
Process
- Load the client's ICP config (or qualification prompt from capability)
- Parse the inbound lead list — accept any format:
- Output from (already normalized)
- Raw CSV with any column structure
- Pasted list of names/emails/companies
- CRM export
- Identify what data is available vs. missing per lead:
- Have: Fields present in the input
- Need: Fields required for qualification but missing
- Gap report: "X leads have company name, Y have title, Z have nothing but email"
Output
- Parsed lead list with available/missing field inventory
- Gap report for the user
Human Checkpoint
If >50% of leads are missing critical fields (company name or person title), recommend running
first. Ask: "Many leads are missing company/title data. Want me to enrich them first, or qualify with what's available?"
Step 2: CRM & Pipeline Check
Process
For each lead, check against existing data sources to identify overlaps:
Check 1 — Existing customer?
- Search customer database by company domain/name
- If match found: Flag as with customer details (plan, account owner, contract status)
- This is NOT a disqualification — it's a routing flag (upsell vs. new business)
Check 2 — Already in pipeline?
- Search CRM/Supabase for the company in active deals
- If match found: Flag as with deal details (stage, owner, last activity)
- Critical: Sales rep should know before reaching out that a colleague already has this account
Check 3 — Previous engagement?
- Search outreach logs for the email/company
- If match found: Flag as with history summary (when, what channel, outcome)
Check 4 — Known from signal composites?
- Search Supabase signals table for the company
- If match found: Flag as with signal type and date
Output
Each lead tagged with:
- : | | |
- : One sentence explaining the overlap (or null)
- : Any signal composite matches
Handling Overlaps
- Existing customer: Don't disqualify. Mark separately. Might be expansion/upsell.
- In pipeline: Don't disqualify. Flag for sales rep coordination. Note the existing deal owner.
- Previously contacted but no response: Still qualify. The inbound signal means they're now warmer.
- Previously contacted and rejected: Still qualify the inbound. People change their minds. Note the prior context.
Step 3: Company Qualification
Process
For each lead's company, evaluate against every ICP company dimension:
Dimension 1 — Company Size
- Check employee count against ICP range
- Sources: enrichment data, LinkedIn company page, web search
- Score: | | |
- Note: If the lead is from a subsidiary or division, evaluate the relevant unit, not the parent company
Dimension 2 — Industry
- Check against target and excluded industry lists
- Be smart about classification: "AI-powered HR platform" matches both "AI/ML" and "HR Tech"
- Score: | (related but not core target) | |
Dimension 3 — Company Stage
- Seed, Series A, Series B+, Growth, Public, Bootstrapped
- Sources: Crunchbase, news, enrichment data
- Score: | | |
Dimension 4 — Geography
- Check HQ location and/or the specific person's location
- For remote-first companies, check where the majority of the team is
- Score: | | |
Dimension 5 — Use Case Fit
- Based on what the company does, could they plausibly use the product?
- This is the most nuanced dimension — requires understanding both the product and the company's operations
- Sources: company website, product description, job postings (hint at internal tools/processes)
- Score: | | | |
Output
{
"company_size": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"industry": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"stage": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"geography": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"use_case": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"company_verdict": "qualified | borderline | disqualified | insufficient_data"
}
Step 4: Person Qualification
Process
For each lead's contact person, evaluate against buyer persona criteria:
Dimension 1 — Title/Role Match
- Check title against buyer persona title lists
- Handle variations: "VP of Marketing" = "Vice President, Marketing" = "VP Marketing"
- Be smart about title inflation at small companies (a "Director" at a 10-person startup ≠ "Director" at a 10,000-person enterprise)
- Score: | | | |
Dimension 2 — Seniority Level
- Map to: Individual Contributor, Manager, Director, VP, C-Level, Founder
- Check against ICP seniority requirements
- Score: | | |
Dimension 3 — Department
- Engineering, Product, Marketing, Sales, Operations, Finance, HR, etc.
- Check against ICP department targets
- Score: | | |
Dimension 4 — Authority Type
- Based on title + seniority, classify:
- — Can sign the check
- — Wants it, can influence the decision
- — Would use it daily, can validate need
- — Tasked with research, limited decision power
- — Can block but not approve
Dimension 5 — Right Person, Wrong Company (or Vice Versa)
- If company qualifies but person doesn't: Flag as
right_company_wrong_person
— this is a referral opportunity
- If person qualifies but company doesn't: Flag as
right_person_wrong_company
— rare for inbound, but possible with job changers
Output
{
"title_match": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"seniority": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"department": { "score": "", "value": "", "reasoning": "" },
"authority_type": "",
"person_verdict": "qualified | borderline | disqualified | insufficient_data",
"mismatch_type": "null | right_company_wrong_person | right_person_wrong_company"
}
Step 5: Use Case Fit Assessment
Process
This step connects the company's likely needs to your product's actual capabilities. It goes deeper than Step 3's company-level use case check.
-
Infer the lead's intent from their inbound action:
- Demo request message → What did they say they need?
- Content downloaded → What topic were they researching?
- Webinar attended → What problem were they trying to solve?
- Free trial signup → What feature did they try first?
- Chatbot conversation → What questions did they ask?
-
Map intent to product capabilities:
- Does the product actually solve what they seem to need?
- Is this a primary use case or a stretch?
- Are there known limitations that would disappoint them?
-
Assess implementation feasibility:
- Based on company size and stage, can they realistically implement?
- Do they likely have the technical resources / team to adopt?
- Any known blockers for companies like this? (e.g., "banks need SOC2 and we don't have it yet")
Output
{
"inferred_intent": "",
"intent_source": "",
"product_fit": "strong | moderate | weak | unknown",
"product_fit_reasoning": "",
"implementation_feasibility": "easy | moderate | complex | unlikely",
"known_blockers": []
}
Step 6: Score & Verdict
Scoring Logic
Combine all dimensions into a final qualification verdict.
Composite Score Calculation:
| Dimension | Weight | Possible Values |
|---|
| Company Size | 15% | match=100, borderline=50, mismatch=0, unknown=30 |
| Industry | 20% | match=100, adjacent=60, mismatch=0, unknown=30 |
| Company Stage | 10% | match=100, borderline=50, mismatch=0, unknown=30 |
| Geography | 10% | match=100, borderline=50, mismatch=0, unknown=30 |
| Use Case Fit | 25% | strong=100, moderate=60, weak=20, no_fit=0, unknown=30 |
| Person Title/Role | 15% | exact=100, close=75, adjacent=40, mismatch=0, unknown=30 |
| Person Seniority | 5% | match=100, too_junior=20, too_senior=60, unknown=30 |
Hard overrides (bypass the score):
- Any hard disqualifier present → regardless of score
- Any hard qualifier present → regardless of score (but still show the full breakdown)
- Existing customer → Route separately, don't score as new lead
Verdict thresholds:
- Score ≥ 75: — Pursue actively
- Score 50-74: — Qualified with caveats, may need manual review
- Score 30-49: — Not qualified now, but close enough to consider (referral or nurture)
- Score < 30: — Does not fit ICP
Sub-verdicts for routing:
- — Score ≥ 75 AND Tier 1/2 urgency from triage
- — Score ≥ 75 AND Tier 3/4 urgency
- — Score 50-74, needs human judgment call
- — Score 30-49 AND right_company_wrong_person (referral opportunity)
- — Score 30-49, might fit in the future
- — Score < 30, needs polite decline
- — Competitor employee
- — Existing customer with expansion signal
Output
Each lead gets:
{
"composite_score": 0-100,
"verdict": "",
"sub_verdict": "",
"top_qualification_reasons": [],
"top_disqualification_reasons": [],
"summary": "One sentence: why this lead is/isn't a fit"
}
Step 7: Output CSV
CSV Structure
Produce a CSV with ALL input fields preserved plus qualification columns appended:
Core qualification columns:
- — qualified | borderline | near_miss | disqualified
qualification_sub_verdict
— qualified_hot | qualified_warm | borderline_review | near_miss_referral | near_miss_nurture | disqualified_polite | disqualified_competitor | existing_customer_upsell
- — 0-100
- — One sentence qualification reasoning
Pipeline check columns:
- — new | existing_customer | in_pipeline | previously_contacted
- — One sentence on the overlap
- — Any signal composite matches
Company qualification columns:
- — match | borderline | mismatch | unknown
- — match | adjacent | mismatch | unknown
- — match | borderline | mismatch | unknown
- — match | borderline | mismatch | unknown
- — strong | moderate | weak | no_fit | unknown
Person qualification columns:
- — exact_match | close_match | adjacent | mismatch | unknown
- — match | too_junior | too_senior | unknown
- — economic_buyer | champion | user | evaluator | gatekeeper | unknown
- — null | right_company_wrong_person | right_person_wrong_company
Use case columns:
- — What they seem to need
- — strong | moderate | weak | unknown
implementation_feasibility
— easy | moderate | complex | unlikely
Save Location
clients/<client-name>/leads/inbound-qualified-[date].csv
Summary Report
After producing the CSV, present a summary:
markdown
## Inbound Lead Qualification: [Period]
**Total leads processed:** X
**Qualified:** X (Y%) — X hot, X warm
**Borderline (manual review):** X (Y%)
**Near miss:** X (Y%) — X referral opportunities, X nurture
**Disqualified:** X (Y%)
**Pipeline overlaps:**
- Existing customers: X (route to CS)
- Already in pipeline: X (coordinate with deal owner)
- Previously contacted: X (now warmer — re-engage)
**Top qualification reasons:**
1. [reason] — X leads
2. [reason] — X leads
**Top disqualification reasons:**
1. [reason] — X leads
2. [reason] — X leads
**Data quality:**
- Leads with full data: X
- Leads with partial data (some dimensions scored as 'unknown'): X
- Leads needing enrichment: X
**CSV saved to:** [path]
Handling Edge Cases
Lead with only an email (no name, no company):
- Extract company domain from email
- If corporate domain: look up the company, proceed with company qualification (person qualification will be mostly "unknown")
- If personal email (gmail, yahoo): Score as , recommend enrichment or manual review
Same company, multiple leads:
- Qualify the company once, apply to all leads from that company
- Person qualification runs individually for each
- Flag the multi-contact opportunity: "3 people from [Company] came inbound — potential committee buy"
Contradictory signals:
- Company is strong fit but person is completely wrong (e.g., intern at a perfect company)
- Score honestly. The sub-verdict
right_company_wrong_person
routes this to referral handling in disqualification-handling
Borderline calls:
- When the score is 50-74 and could go either way, lean toward qualifying for inbound leads
- Rationale: they came to YOU. The intent signal tips borderline cases toward "worth a conversation"
- Note this lean in the reasoning: "Borderline on [dimension], but inbound intent suggests pursuing"
Scoring with missing data:
- Unknown dimensions score at 30 (not 0, not 50) — absence of data is mildly negative but not disqualifying
- If >3 dimensions are "unknown", the lead is regardless of score — recommend enrichment first
Tools Required
- CRM access — to check pipeline, existing customers, outreach history
- Supabase client — for pipeline/signal lookups
- Web search — for company research when enrichment data is sparse
- Enrichment tools — Apollo, LinkedIn scraper, or similar (optional, enhances accuracy)
- Read/Write — for CSV I/O and config management