skills/prospecting/references/demand-signals.md
The other three branches build a list from who fits (firmographics, technographics, proximity). This branch builds a list from who is already showing the pain — the early-stage motion where you have a product and a hunch but no customer base yet, and you need your first ten real conversations. You are not filtering a database; you are mining recent public discourse for people describing the exact problem you solve, then linking every prospect to the evidence.
Use this branch when the user is pre-product-market-fit, launching something new, or looking for design partners, beta users, or first customers rather than a scaled outbound list. It reuses the shared five phases and every compliance guardrail in SKILL.md; what changes is where you look, how you score, and what you ship.
Pattern credit: the framework here is re-expressed from the open-source first-customer-finder Codex skill (Kappaemme, MIT), extended with our live-recency tooling.
| List-building branches (SaaS / B2B / SMB) | Demand-signal discovery | |
|---|---|---|
| Starts from | A firmographic ICP | A described problem |
| Sources | Contact databases (Apollo, ZoomInfo, Clay) | Public discourse (forums, reviews, issues, posts) |
| Contact step | Enrich + verify email deliverability | None — reach them where they already posted |
| Wins on | Coverage at scale | 10 strong evidence-backed matches over a long list |
| Output | A scored lead sheet | An evidence report + manual outreach plan |
A prospect here without a cited pain, need, or timing signal is a speculative fit — it does not belong in the primary shortlist. Evidence is the entry ticket.
Define, specifically enough to reject weak matches:
Don't start broad collection until the brief is sharp. Pull from .agents/product-marketing.md if it exists.
Search several angles, not one query repeated. Adapt wording to how the audience actually talks (mine their vocabulary from organic content first — see the ad-creative hook-system's organic-language note for the same idea).
Use our live-recency edge. A generic skill relies on whatever a web search surfaces; you have better:
Forums and public community threads · public social posts and replies · product and app-marketplace reviews · GitHub issues and feature requests · public company pages, job posts, changelogs, launch announcements · "looking for a tool" posts and directories.
Avoid private groups, gated communities, data brokers, leaked datasets, and any source whose terms prohibit access — the same compliance guardrails as every other branch (see SKILL.md), including the no-sensitive-traits rule.
Business/professional context only. Qualify and reach out only where someone is posting in a professional or business capacity about a work problem (a founder in an indie-hackers thread, a developer in a GitHub issue, an ops lead in a subreddit for their role). Exclude personal-distress contexts entirely — health, financial hardship, addiction, grief, or any consumer support forum where people are venting personal problems, even if your product is tangentially relevant. When the motion is genuinely consumer (B2C), a public pain post is not on its own a lawful basis for cold outreach — reach people through the channel's own norms (reply publicly where replying is expected) and never DM a stranger off a personal post.
Quote minimally, paraphrase by default, and link every material pain or timing signal.
The list-building branches score Hot/Warm/Cold on ICP fit. This branch scores 0–100 on demand fit — how strongly the evidence says this specific prospect wants this specific thing now. Score each dimension 0–5:
| Dimension | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Pain strength | 25% | Directness, severity, repetition, and cost of the stated problem |
| Product fit | 25% | How directly your product solves the evidenced job |
| Timing | 20% | Freshness + a current trigger present |
| Public reachability | 15% | A natural, relevant public/professional contact path exists |
| Evidence quality | 15% | Specificity, source reliability, confidence the signal is really theirs |
score = pain/5*25 + fit/5*25 + timing/5*20 + reachability/5*15 + evidence/5*15
| Band | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 80–100 | Strong first-customer candidate |
| 65–79 | Promising — validate fast |
| 50–64 | Plausible but missing a material signal |
| Below 50 | Do not include in the primary shortlist |
An old explicit request can still count — but lower the timing score and label the date. A company that merely matches the industry with no evidenced trigger is not a qualified prospect here.
Displayed name (company/project/public professional) · source title + URL · visible publication date or "date unavailable" · source type · the concise pain/timing signal · observed evidence vs. inference (label which) · score breakdown · freshness warning when the signal is stale.
Recommend the most natural channel already associated with the source, and only where a reply is a normal part of that channel (reply in the public thread, respond via a public professional profile). Don't turn a public post into a private DM the poster didn't invite, and never contact someone off a personal-distress post. Draft one opener, under ~90 words, in this shape:
Never claim familiarity you don't have, never fabricate personal details, and never auto-send: no messages, connects, follows, comments, form submissions, or CRM records unless the user separately authorizes that action. This is the manual/gated posture from the marketing-loops guardrails.
Lead with the most actionable evidence, in this order:
For a shareable standalone HTML version of this report, the JSON→HTML generator pattern in ad-creative's creative-review-page.md is the model (escape every value; keep it self-contained).