marketingskills/skills/prospecting/evals/evals.json

{
  "skill_name": "prospecting",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "prompt": "We're a B2B SaaS selling RevOps tooling at $30K ACV. Build me a list of 25 prospects.",
      "expected_output": "Should check for product-marketing.md first. Should identify this as the SaaS branch. Should run Phase 1 ICP definition pulling from product-marketing context or asking targeted questions (target industry, headcount range, tech stack signals, funding stage). Should propose discovery sources appropriate for SaaS at $30K ACV: Apollo for breadth, Clay for waterfall enrichment, Crunchbase for funding signals, BuiltWith/Wappalyzer for tech stack, LinkedIn Sales Nav for decision-mapping (manual). Should ask about user's tool access before assuming. Should source 50-75 candidates (2-3x target) before qualifying. Should flag that email validation via Truelist or similar is non-negotiable before final list. Should output SaaS-branch chat table columns (Score | Company | Industry | Size | Signal | Contact | Email status | Confidence) followed by top 3-5 hot leads with one-sentence rationale each. Should reference references/saas-prospecting.md.",
      "assertions": [
        "Checks for product-marketing.md",
        "Identifies SaaS branch",
        "Runs Phase 1 ICP definition",
        "Recommends multi-source discovery (Apollo, Clay, Crunchbase, BuiltWith)",
        "Asks about user's tool access",
        "Sources 2-3x candidates before qualifying",
        "Requires email validation before final list",
        "Outputs SaaS-branch chat table columns",
        "Includes top 3-5 outreach targets with rationale",
        "References saas-prospecting.md"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "prompt": "Find me 25 SaaS companies that just raised a Series B in the last 60 days and use HubSpot.",
      "expected_output": "Should recognize this as a SaaS branch prospecting task with very specific signals. Should identify the trigger event (Series B in last 60 days) and the technographic filter (uses HubSpot). Should recommend a workflow: (1) Crunchbase or Pitchbook for funding signal filter (Series B + date), (2) BuiltWith or Clay's waterfall for tech stack verification (uses HubSpot), (3) cross-check via business websites and LinkedIn. Should note this is a tight ICP that should yield high-confidence matches if data sources are current. Should flag freshness concerns: Crunchbase data depends on self-reporting, BuiltWith refresh cycles aren't real-time. Should recommend cross-source verification for the funding date specifically. Should output a SaaS-branch chat table with the funding round + date in the Signal column. Should include verified email validation before delivering.",
      "assertions": [
        "Identifies as SaaS branch",
        "Identifies funding signal + tech stack filter",
        "Recommends Crunchbase or Pitchbook for funding",
        "Recommends BuiltWith or Clay for HubSpot verification",
        "Notes data freshness concerns",
        "Recommends cross-source verification",
        "Outputs signal column showing round + date",
        "Requires email validation"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 3,
      "prompt": "I run a marketing agency. Find me 25 mid-market manufacturers in the Midwest US who recently hired a new CMO.",
      "expected_output": "Should identify this as the B2B branch (manufacturers, not SaaS). Should run Phase 1 ICP definition: industry (manufacturing, with NAICS code if precision matters), size (mid-market = typically 200-2000 employees), geography (Midwest US states), trigger event (CMO hire in last 90-180 days). Should propose discovery: Apollo or ZoomInfo for firmographic filter, LinkedIn Sales Nav for CMO hire detection (job changes), Google Alerts on press releases for trigger events. Should warn that CMO hires aren't always in public databases — LinkedIn Sales Nav alerts on job changes is the most reliable source. Should output B2B-branch chat table with the CMO trigger as the signal. Should reference references/b2b-prospecting.md. Should mention compliance: GDPR less likely (US-only), CAN-SPAM applies, capture source URL + date for every contact.",
      "assertions": [
        "Identifies B2B branch (not SaaS)",
        "Runs Phase 1 ICP definition with NAICS or industry classification",
        "Specifies mid-market size band",
        "Specifies Midwest US geography",
        "Identifies trigger event (CMO hire)",
        "Recommends Apollo/ZoomInfo + LinkedIn Sales Nav",
        "Notes CMO hires often only on LinkedIn",
        "Outputs B2B-branch chat table",
        "Mentions CAN-SPAM and source URL capture",
        "References b2b-prospecting.md"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 4,
      "prompt": "We sell to industrial distributors. Build a list of 25 prospects.",
      "expected_output": "Should identify this as the B2B branch. Should run Phase 1 ICP definition asking targeted questions: distributor size, geography, vertical specialty, buying patterns. Should propose discovery: Apollo or ZoomInfo for firmographic depth, industry-specific directories (e.g., NAW for wholesale distributors, ISA for industrial sales agencies), trade show exhibitor lists. Should note state business registries and Chamber of Commerce as verification sources. Should propose trigger events: new location, recent acquisition, leadership change, posting RFPs. Should warn that industrial distributor data is often spotty in major databases — cross-check with company website + LinkedIn for size and ownership signals. Should output B2B-branch chat table. Should note ICP fit precision matters more than initial volume for this kind of niche prospecting.",
      "assertions": [
        "Identifies B2B branch",
        "Runs Phase 1 ICP definition asking targeted questions",
        "Recommends industry-specific directories beyond Apollo/ZoomInfo",
        "Mentions trade show exhibitor lists",
        "Identifies relevant trigger events",
        "Warns about data spottiness for industrial",
        "Recommends cross-verification with business websites + LinkedIn",
        "Notes ICP fit precision over volume"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 5,
      "prompt": "I build websites for local businesses. Find me 15 prospects near Austin, TX who don't have a website.",
      "expected_output": "Should identify as Local SMB branch. Should run Phase 1 ICP definition: business category (ask user — gyms, restaurants, salons, etc. matter), radius (default 20 km from Austin), target count (15). Should run the browser research workflow: search Google Maps for category + Austin, build candidate list from visible results, cross-check via business name + city web search to verify website status. Should apply the 4-tier website status classification (No site found / Social only / Weak site / Has site) — prioritize No site + Social only as Hot. Should score: Hot (no site + active + phone + within radius), Warm (weak site), Cold (has site), Skip (closed/duplicate/out of scope). Should output Local SMB chat table (Score | Business | Category | Area | Distance | Website status | Website/Social | Phone | Why prospect | Confidence). Should add 'Best first outreach targets' top 3 with reasoning. Should reference references/local-prospecting.md. Should warn against bulk-scraping Google Maps (ToS violation) — browser-assisted research only.",
      "assertions": [
        "Identifies Local SMB branch",
        "Asks about business category if not specified",
        "Defaults radius to 20km",
        "Runs browser research workflow",
        "Applies 4-tier website status classification",
        "Uses Hot/Warm/Cold/Skip scoring",
        "Outputs Local SMB chat table columns",
        "Adds top 3 outreach targets",
        "References local-prospecting.md",
        "Warns against bulk-scraping Google Maps"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 6,
      "prompt": "I have a list of 200 prospect emails from Apollo. How do I know which ones are deliverable before I start outreach?",
      "expected_output": "Should explain the deliverability validation step in Phase 3. Should recommend Truelist (the integration in this pack) for bulk validation. Should explain the email_state classification output: ok (deliverable), email_invalid (bounces, exclude), risky (deliverable with risk like role or disposable, include cautiously), unknown (couldn't determine, skip or re-verify), accept_all (catch-all domain, include cautiously). Should warn that Apollo data accuracy is typically 60-80% — sending without validation will tank sender reputation (bounce rate >2% triggers ISP throttling and reputation damage). Should recommend the workflow: bulk POST to /api/v1/verify or CSV upload → keep ok, include risky/accept_all cautiously, exclude email_invalid, re-verify unknown → hand off to outreach. Should note Truelist also has an official MCP server for agent-driven validation. Should note cold email reputation is hard to recover once damaged — validation is non-negotiable, not optional. Should mention Hunter and Snov as alternatives with built-in verification. Should reference truelist.md integration guide.",
      "assertions": [
        "Recommends Truelist for bulk validation",
        "Explains email_state values (ok, email_invalid, risky, unknown, accept_all)",
        "Warns Apollo accuracy is 60-80%",
        "Cites 2% bounce rate threshold for reputation damage",
        "Recommends workflow: validate, keep ok, exclude email_invalid",
        "Mentions Truelist MCP server for agent workflows",
        "Mentions cold email reputation is hard to recover",
        "References truelist.md or data-sources.md"
      ],
      "files": []
    }
  ]
}