Seed user pool stratification
Skill Celina-create/X-Studio/skills/seed-user-pool-stratification
A solo studio for growth operators — skills, playbooks, templates.
npx -y skills add Celina-create/X-Studio --skill seed-user-pool-stratificationAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
3.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
seed-user-pool-stratification
Purpose — Given a raw seed user pool of 100–1000 rows, stratify it into ROI-ranked tiers before spending any outreach energy. Prevents the classic mistake of spraying Tier-4 prospects first and burning the list.
Triggers — "rank this seed pool", "who should I message first", "stratify these 500 leads", "who's Tier 1 here"
Why this matters — Reply rate drops ~70% when you send to low-tier leads first (they set the baseline, contaminate deliverability, and burn your bandwidth). Always hit Tier 1 first, learn, then decide if Tier 2–4 is worth the effort.
Inputs
- Raw seed CSV (from
competitive-intel-miningor elsewhere) with at minimum:handle,source_url,exact_quote,pain_category - Your product's ICP — 1–2 sentences describing who benefits most
- Capacity — how many messages you can send personally per week (realistic, not aspirational)
Outputs
- CSV with added columns:
tier(1–4),intent_score(0–3),fit_score(0–3),access_score(0–3),rationale,send_week pool-ranking-summary.md— how many rows per tier, recommended send sequence, estimated reply/convert rates
Scoring rubric
Each row gets 3 scores, each 0–3. Total = intent × 0.5 + fit × 0.3 + access × 0.2.
Intent (0–3) — how hot is their pain right now?
3— Complaint posted in last 30 days, unresolved, active blocker2— Complaint in last 90 days, resolved but with workaround1— Mentioned pain >90 days ago0— No direct pain signal
Fit (0–3) — how well do they match your ICP?
3— Exact ICP (role, team size, tech stack all match)2— Adjacent ICP (2 of 3 match)1— Loose ICP (1 of 3 match)0— Not ICP
Access (0–3) — how easily can you reach them?
3— Public email + active on X/LinkedIn + English-speaking2— Two reach channels available1— One obscure channel only0— Effectively anonymous handle
Tiering
| Tier | Weighted score | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | ≥2.5 | Personal 1-to-1 outreach by founder, within 7 days |
| Tier 2 | 1.8–2.4 | Templated-but-personalized outreach, within 3 weeks |
| Tier 3 | 1.0–1.7 | Bulk outreach with minimal personalization, when Tier 1–2 exhausted |
| Tier 4 | <1.0 | Drop or park for a later community-building phase |
Steps
- Score each row across intent / fit / access
- Compute weighted score → tier
- Write 1-sentence rationale per Tier-1 row (why them, why now, what angle)
- Capacity-cap Tier 1 — if you have 10 Tier-1 rows but only capacity for 5/week, split across 2 weeks
- Write summary — how many per tier, send sequence, expected reply rate (benchmark: Tier 1 = 30–50%, Tier 2 = 10–20%, Tier 3 = 2–5%)
Quality bar
- Every Tier-1 row has a written rationale
- Tier 1 does not exceed your realistic weekly capacity × 4 (otherwise you burn the list)
- If Tier 1 is <5 rows, don't stratify — just hand-pick. Stratification is overkill for small pools.
Anti-patterns
- Don't skip Tier 1 to "warm up with easy Tier 3 messages." Tier 1 teaches you what resonates; Tier 3 teaches you only that cold email is hard.
- Don't let fit override intent. Perfect ICP + no pain = no reply. Hotter pain + loose ICP converts higher.
- Don't rank on "followers" or "stars." Prominence ≠ pain.
Related
- Upstream skill:
competitive-intel-mining - Downstream skill:
personalized-cold-outreach - Playbook:
01-cold-email-campaign