--- name: account-tiering description: "Use this skill when you need to decide which accounts get the most effort: \"tier my account list\", \"which accounts should get 1:1 research\", \"prioritise my territory\", \"score these companies\". Scores every account on ICP fit and timing, assigns Tier 1, 2 or 3 with a clear effort level for each tier, and explains the score so reps trust it. Produces a tiered account list and the operating rules for how much research, personalization and channel effort each tier gets." license: MIT metadata: title: Account tiering category: prospecting tags: "Sales, SDR, Sales Leaders, RevOps" author: prosyo version: "1.0.0" keywords: "account tiering, account prioritization, tier 1 tier 2 tier 3 accounts, claude account scoring skill, territory planning" inputs: "Account list, ICP, Signals and CRM history" outputs: "Tiered account list, Score breakdown, Effort rules per tier" --- Use this when there are more accounts than time. It produces tiers that tell every rep how much effort each account deserves, and a score breakdown that makes the tier defensible. ## Inputs - The account list with whatever firmographics exist. - The ICP with must-haves, nice-to-haves and disqualifiers. - Signals and history: intent, website visits, past opportunities, engagement, triggers. ## The play ### 1. Score fit and timing separately Fit says whether the account could ever buy; timing says whether it might buy now. Keep them as two numbers on a 0-100 scale. Combining them too early hides great-fit accounts that are simply not ready, and they belong in nurture, not the bin. Read [references/tiering-rubric.md](references/tiering-rubric.md) for the full rubric, the weights and the tie-break rules. ### 2. Place each account on the grid | | Timing high (60+) | Timing low | | --- | --- | --- | | **Fit high (70+)** | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | | **Fit medium (50-69)** | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | | **Fit low (under 50)** | Tier 3 or out | Out | ### 3. Cap Tier 1 Tier 1 is limited by research capacity: roughly 20 to 50 accounts per rep at a time. If the scoring puts 400 accounts in Tier 1, raise the thresholds instead of diluting the effort. ### 4. Attach effort rules | Tier | Research | Personalization | Channels | Contacts per account | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | 20-30 min account + person research | 1:1 opener per person | Email, LinkedIn, phone, video | 3-5 | | 2 | 5 min trigger check | Segment message plus a personal line | Email and LinkedIn | 2-3 | | 3 | None | Segment message | Email or LinkedIn | 1-2 | ### 5. Re-tier on a schedule Timing changes weekly. Re-score monthly, and immediately when a strong signal fires (new leader, funding, high-intent page visit). ## Output format ``` account | fit score | timing score | tier | top 3 score drivers | next action ``` Plus a summary: counts per tier, Tier 1 capacity check, and accounts that moved tiers since the last run. ## What good looks like - A rep reading the score drivers agrees with the tier more than 8 times out of 10. If they do not, the weights are wrong. - Tier 1 fits the team's research capacity. - Great-fit, bad-timing accounts are kept warm, not discarded. - The common mistake is one blended score where a huge logo with no need outranks a perfect-fit account that just hired for the exact problem. ## Rules - MUST show the score drivers for every account. - MUST keep fit and timing as separate scores. - NEVER let Tier 1 exceed research capacity. - NEVER tier an account with a disqualifier above "out". ## Example prompts - "Tier these 600 accounts for my territory. I can research about 40 deeply." - "Score our target list on fit and timing and show me why each is Tier 1." - "Re-tier my accounts with this month's intent data." --- # Tiering rubric ## Fit score (0-100) | Component | Points | How to score | | --- | --- | --- | | Core ICP must-haves | 0-45 | Even split across must-haves; any miss caps fit at 49 | | Size in the sweet spot | 0-15 | Full points in the band where win rate is highest, half in adjacent bands | | Nice-to-haves | 0-15 | Stack match, business model detail, region | | Reachable buying group | 0-15 | Named buyer and champion with verified channels | | Relationship assets | 0-10 | Former customer champion now there, shared investor, warm intro path | | Disqualifier | Fit = 0 | Overrides all | ## Timing score (0-100) | Signal | Points | Decay | | --- | --- | --- | | New leader in the buying role | 30 | Halves after 90 days | | Hiring for a role your product supports | 25 | Zero when the listing closes | | Funding round | 20 | Halves after 120 days | | High-intent web visits (pricing, comparison, demo pages) | 25 | Halves after 14 days | | Engagement with your content or team | 15 | Halves after 30 days | | Third-party intent on your category | 15 | Halves after 30 days | | Past opportunity lost to "timing" | 15 | Peaks at the date they named | Cap timing at 100. ## Tie-breaks inside a tier 1. Higher timing first. 2. Then accounts with an existing relationship asset. 3. Then larger potential contract value. ## Calibrating the weights After a quarter, compare tiers with outcomes: | Tier | Accounts | Meetings | Meeting rate | Opportunities | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | 120 | 34 | 28% | 19 | | 2 | 480 | 41 | 9% | 17 | | 3 | 1,400 | 22 | 2% | 6 | Healthy pattern: each tier converts at roughly 2-4x the tier below. If Tier 1 and Tier 2 convert at similar rates, the fit weights are not discriminating; look at which components the Tier 2 winners scored low on and raise those weights.