HG Insights|Phoenix

Prospecting List Quality Scorecard

The Friday-afternoon ritual that turns 'how was the list this week' from gut-feel into a defensible grade.

Prospecting List Quality Scorecard
Sample preview

Sample output for this workflow will appear here once it is captured.

Run the workflow in Claude, ChatGPT, or Phoenix Playground using the buttons below to see real output.

Overview

Grade a manager-supplied prospecting list as Strong / Acceptable / Weak per account based on which triggers actually fired and how recent they are. Pure grading workflow — outputs the verdict + reasoning per row only. No recommended actions, no contact discovery, no email drafting (those live in the cohort's other workflows).

Use cases

  • Friday afternoon that ends with a defensible grade, not a vibe

    Your SDR manager runs this on the week's sequenced list and gets a Strong / Acceptable / Weak verdict per account, with the firing signals and recency named per row. Monday's standup is anchored on 'these 4 were Weak because the signals were stale — let's talk about why they got sequenced' instead of 'I think the list felt soft this week'.

  • Grading only — no recommendations that pollute the rubric

    The workflow does NOT suggest contacts, draft messages, or build sequences. Those motions live in the other SDR/BDR cohort workflows (the prioritizer, the incumbent-tenure displacement sequencer, etc.). Keeping grading pure means the rubric stays defensible and the manager's coaching has clean inputs.

View workflow prompt
# Prospecting List Quality Scorecard

## Parameters

- `{{domains}}` *(required)* — Comma-separated domains from the prospecting list to grade. Example: `acme.com,globex.com,initech.com`
- `{{your_product}}` *(required)* — Your product or category — anchors intent topic resolution and FAI function selection. Example: `Datadog`
- `{{buying_function}}` *(required)* — The function most likely to own the buying decision (load-bearing — drives FAI signal interpretation). Example: `Engineering`

## Purpose
You are an SDR manager grading the week's prospecting list. For each domain in {{domains}}, apply the `sdr-trigger-prioritization` rubric and return a Strong / Acceptable / Weak verdict with the reasoning. **This workflow grades only** — it does not generate recommended actions, contact lists, or messaging. Those motions live in the other SDR/BDR cohort workflows; grading them is a separate manager-shaped task.

## Process
1. **Per-domain trigger sweep** — for each domain, call (in parallel where possible):
   - `company_intent` — score, `buyers_journey`, recency (resolve category topics inline via `list_intent_topics` once if needed)
   - `company_install_time_series` filtered to {{your_product}}'s category — `intensity_momentum`
   - `company_technographic` — recent competitor/adjacency adds (`firstVerifiedDate` ≤6 months) AND long-tenure incumbents (`firstVerifiedDate` ≥24 months as renewal-proximity proxy — HG MCP does not expose SaaS product renewals as a primitive; tenure is the canonical workaround)
   - `company_fai` — point-in-time `departmentUsageShare` for {{buying_function}} (the tool is point-in-time; no 6-month delta primitive exists)
   - `company_firmographic` — ICP gate
2. **Apply the rubric** per [`sdr-trigger-prioritization`](https://phoenix.hginsights.com/gtm/skills/sdr-trigger-prioritization):
   - **Strong**: 2+ strong signals firing inside their decay windows + firmographic ICP match (e.g., intent ≤30d at `buyers_journey: "Purchasing"` + recent competitor add + function-led signal in the buying function)
   - **Acceptable**: 1 strong signal OR 2-3 weak signals + firmographic ICP match
   - **Weak**: only stale signals (outside decay window) OR ICP miss OR contradiction-pattern fired (rising intent + declining incumbent install)
3. **Output the verdict** with the firing signals named and the recency tagged per row. **Do not** produce contact suggestions, opening lines, or sequence outlines.

## Output Format
- `# 📋 Prospecting List Quality Scorecard`
- `## Strong (count)` — table: domain | firing signals (with recency) | reasoning
- `## Acceptable (count)` — same shape
- `## Weak (count)` — same shape, with the reason-for-weak named (stale signals, ICP miss, contradiction pattern)
- `## Summary` — one-line summary: "{strong_count} Strong, {acceptable_count} Acceptable, {weak_count} Weak — list quality is {Strong|Acceptable|Weak} this week"

## Quality Checklist
- Pure grading — no recommended actions, no contact suggestions, no message drafting (those would duplicate `abm-campaign-builder` and the other SDR/BDR workflows)
- Every row cites the firing signals by tool name and recency tag — `[company_intent: buyers_journey Purchasing, 11 days]`, etc.
- Contradiction-pattern hits drop to Weak with the pattern named (e.g., "rising intent + declining incumbent install = research-stage churn risk")
- The summary line is the only aggregate prose — no per-row narrative, just the grading rubric applied