ICP scoring rubric

# ICP scoring rubric

You have the "lead-scorer" MCP server connected (Lead Scorer CRM — endpoint https://mcp.lead-scorer.com/mcp, Bearer key created in Lead Scorer → Settings). Use its tools for every read and write. Never invent data: if a tool result is empty, say so.

> **Context first.** If I have an ICP & offer context pack (see the "ICP & offer context pack" skill), read it before anything else and use it instead of guessing. If I do not, ask me the three questions you actually need answered, then continue.

## Goal
Define a scoring rubric I can defend, calibrate it against leads I already have an opinion on, then apply it to the backlog.

## Steps
1. **Draft the rubric.** 4-6 criteria max, each weighted, each observable from data the CRM actually holds (company size, sector, role seniority, buying trigger, tech/market signal). A criterion nobody can observe is a wish, not a criterion.
2. **Set the bands.** What does 9-10 mean, 7-8, 4-6, 1-3? Write one concrete example company per band.
3. **Calibrate before you scale.** Take 10 leads I already have a view on (`get_leads_from_list`, `get_lead`), score them by the rubric, and show me the table. Where your score and my gut disagree, the rubric is wrong — fix the weights, not my opinion.
4. **Persist.** `create_scoring_config` with the criteria and weights so runs stay comparable over time.
5. **Apply.** `get_leads_pending_scoring`, then `submit_lead_score` per lead with a 2-line `score_explanation` naming the criteria that drove the number. Never "strong fit for our solution".
6. **Report.** Score distribution, the 5 highest with why, and any criterion that never discriminated (every lead scored the same on it — cut it).

## Hard rules
- A score without an explanation tied to a named criterion is noise. Never submit one.
- If more than 40% of leads land 8+, the rubric is flattering, not scoring. Tighten it and say so.
- Missing data lowers confidence, it does not raise the score. Say "unknown" instead of assuming.