Grade the quality of inbound leads before they hit the AE
Images on this page are for illustrative purposes only. Example outputs are based on Lusha data, with personal details masked or abbreviated for privacy.
This Claude prompt validates a batch of inbound leads against your ICP and returns a graded routing list before anyone picks up the phone. Lusha confirms the real title, company fit, and contact details. The output is a four-grade report — A through D — with a specific routing recommendation per lead and a flag for every case where the form title doesn’t match what Lusha returns.
Tools: Claude, Lusha, lead data (pasted)
The prompt
This prompt may contain placeholders — look for [BRACKETS] and fill them in.
<context>
I want to validate and grade a batch of inbound leads before routing them to AEs. I need to know which leads are genuinely qualified — right ICP, real contact, verified details — and which ones will waste AE time if they get routed as-is.
My lead batch:
- Lead list: [PASTE NAME, TITLE AS SUBMITTED, COMPANY, SOURCE — one per line]
- Our ICP criteria:
- Industry: [TARGET INDUSTRIES]
- Company size: [HEADCOUNT RANGE]
- Geography: [REGION]
- Function we sell into: [FUNCTION]
- Disqualifiers: [HARD RULES THAT RULE A LEAD OUT]
- Routing threshold: [WHAT GRADE GETS ROUTED TO AE vs SDR vs NURTURE]
</context>
<task>
1. For each lead, use Lusha to validate and enrich:
- Confirm the contact's actual current title — form-submitted titles are often wrong
- Confirm they're still at the company
- Pull verified work email and direct phone
- Seniority read: decision-maker / influencer / end user / researcher
- Company: headcount, industry, geography, headcount in the function we sell into
2. Score each lead against the ICP criteria:
- A: Strong ICP fit + decision-maker or economic buyer + verified contact details
- B: Strong ICP fit + influencer or end user, OR good ICP fit + decision-maker
- C: Partial ICP fit, OR strong fit but unverified contact, OR researcher-level seniority
- D: Outside ICP, or fails a disqualifier
3. For each lead, flag:
- Whether the submitted title matches the verified Lusha title
- Whether the company is already a customer or in active pipeline
- Any signal at the company that explains the inbound: funding, exec hire, headcount growth
4. Return a lead grading report:
- Summary: X leads graded, X Grade A, X Grade B, X Grade C, X Grade D
- Full graded list with verified title, ICP status, seniority read, and routing recommendation
- Grade A leads with verified contact details ready to route
- Grade D leads with specific disqualification reason
- Any leads where form title and verified title differ significantly — flag for review
5. Routing recommendation per lead:
- Grade A: Route to AE immediately with the verified brief
- Grade B: Route to SDR for qualification call before AE
- Grade C: Hold for nurture or SDR outreach when capacity allows
- Grade D: Do not route — flag reason and suggested next action
</task>
<constraints>
- Validate via Lusha before assigning any grade. Form data alone is not enough to grade a lead.
- A title mismatch is information, not a disqualifier — flag it and let the routing decision account for it.
- Grade D is a clean and useful output. Routing a D lead to an AE wastes more time than not routing it.
- If Lusha can't verify a contact, grade it C at best — unverified contact details are a routing risk regardless of ICP fit.
- The routing recommendation must be specific: AE name or team, not just "route to sales."
</constraints>What you'll get back
The situation: A RevOps lead at a B2B SaaS company runs the prompt on 8 inbound leads from the past 48 hours — a mix of demo requests and content downloads. ICP: SaaS or FinTech, 100–600 employees, North America, selling into Sales and RevOps. Routing threshold: Grade A to AE, Grade B to SDR, Grade C and D to nurture or skip.
Output: 2 Grade A, 3 Grade B, 2 Grade C, 1 Grade D. Two title mismatches flagged. One existing customer surfaced.
Lead grading report
8 leads graded · 2 Grade A · 3 Grade B · 2 Grade C · 1 Grade D
Run: May 19, 2025. Validated via Lusha. Lead data from form submissions.
Grade A — route to AE now
J.K., Halcyon Ventures · Demo request
- Form title: “Sales Operations”
- Verified title: Chief Revenue Officer ⚠ Title mismatch — significant
- Lusha: CRO, 18 days in role · 310 employees · SaaS · Austin
- Seniority: Decision-maker — CRO owns the full sales tech budget at this size
- Signal: New CRO in first 60 days — audit window open
- Verified email: j.k@[halcyon].com ✓ · mobile available
- Route to: Enterprise AE team (new CRO = enterprise motion)
- Note: The form says “Sales Operations” — the real person is the CRO. Brief the AE before they call.
S.R., Waverly Digital · Demo request
- Form title: “VP Sales”
- Verified title: VP of Sales ✓ Title matches
- Lusha: VP Sales, 22 days in role · 190 employees · SaaS · Vancouver
- Seniority: Decision-maker
- Signal: New VP Sales hire — first VP at a founder-led company
- Verified email: s.r@[waverly].com ✓ · mobile available
- Route to: Mid-market AE team
Grade B — route to SDR first
| Lead | Form title | Verified title | Company | Seniority | Route |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A.M., Finova Group | “Revenue Operations” | Head of Revenue Operations | 180 emp, FinTech | Influencer — budget sits above this role | SDR to confirm who owns the decision |
| D.P., Kestrel Labs | “VP Sales” | VP of Sales | 155 emp, HR Tech | Decision-maker | SDR — adjacent industry, needs qualification |
| R.C., Dune Analytics | “CRO” | Chief Revenue Officer | 280 emp, Data/Analytics | Decision-maker | SDR — adjacent industry, needs qualification |
Grade C — nurture or low-priority SDR
T.K., Brightfield Co · Content download
- Form title: “Sales Manager”
- Verified title: Senior Sales Manager
- Lusha: 112 employees, SaaS, UK — outside geography (North America ICP)
- Seniority: End user
- Hold for nurture — geography disqualifier, end user level
P.L., Novela Group · Content download
- Form title: “Operations”
- Verified: Head of Operations
- Lusha: 48 employees — below minimum headcount threshold
- Seniority: Decision-maker at a company too small to qualify
- Hold for nurture — monitor for headcount growth
Grade D — do not route
C.S., Corelink SaaS · Demo request
- Form title: “Sales Rep”
- Verified title: Account Executive
- Lusha: 95 employees, SaaS
- ⚠ Existing customer — Corelink SaaS is an active account in our CRM
- Do not route to sales. Flag to CS team — an AE from an existing customer requesting a demo is likely a user-level curiosity, not a new deal. Pass to the CS owner.
Title mismatches — review before routing
| Lead | Form title | Verified title | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| J.K., Halcyon Ventures | “Sales Operations” | Chief Revenue Officer | AE must be briefed — they’re calling a CRO, not an ops analyst |
| A.M., Finova Group | “Revenue Operations” | Head of Revenue Operations | Minor — same function, higher seniority than submitted |
All contact data validated via Lusha connector, May 19. Lead data from form submissions. Details masked for privacy.
Why use Lusha in Claude
Inbound lead routing is where bad data does the most damage. A Grade A lead routed to the wrong AE, a CRO miscategorized as a sales ops analyst, an existing customer’s employee sent to a new business AE — each one is a wasted conversation and sometimes a damaged relationship. Form data is unreliable by design: people use personal emails, vague titles, and sometimes route their colleague’s details through a form. Lusha in Claude validates the real picture before any human touches the lead. The title mismatch flag is what makes this prompt distinct — it catches the cases where the routing decision would have been made on wrong information, not just cases where the company doesn’t fit.
Data drawn from 300M+ verified contacts under GDPR, CCPA, SOC 2, ISO 27701, ISO 31700, and TRUSTe.
FAQ
How many leads can I run at once?
10–15 works well in a single prompt. For larger batches — a full day’s leads or a webinar list — split into groups of 10 and run sequentially. Each group takes about 3 minutes.
What format should the lead data be in?
Paste one lead per line: Name, title as submitted, company, source. It doesn’t need to be perfectly structured — Claude reads it as a list. A CRM or form export pasted directly works fine.
What does a title mismatch actually mean for routing?
It means the AE needs to be briefed before the call. Calling someone expecting a Sales Operations analyst and reaching a CRO who’s 18 days into the role is a different conversation — one that requires a different opener, different questions, and a different deal size expectation. The mismatch flag gives the AE what they need before the call rather than discovering it during.
What happens when an existing customer submits a form?
The prompt flags it as an existing customer and blocks the routing to a new business AE. The right action is to pass it to the CS or AM owner. An existing customer’s employee submitting a demo request is almost never a new deal — it’s usually a user who doesn’t know they’re already a customer, or a new team member exploring the product.
How is this different from the single inbound lead research prompt?
The research an inbound lead before calling back prompt is for a single lead — one rep, one callback, detailed brief. This prompt is for RevOps running a batch before routing — volume-focused, grading-focused, routing-focused. Use the single-lead prompt when a rep wants depth before a call. Use this one when RevOps needs to triage a queue.
Should I always disqualify Grade D leads immediately?
Grade D means the lead doesn’t meet ICP or fails a disqualifier — it shouldn’t go to an AE. But “do not route” doesn’t always mean “discard.” A company that’s 80 employees today might hit 120 in six months. Grade D leads worth monitoring go to a nurture list with a Lusha signal watch, not a delete.
Ready to build this?
Get started with Lusha and set up this play in minutes.
