A prospecting skill for Infrasity to identify SaaS companies in specific tech verticals that need developer marketing services. Every data point in the output is backed by a source URL. Self-reported company claims are flagged. Inferences are stated as inferences.
Input Parameters
Every prospecting request has three inputs. Confirm all three before starting:
| Parameter | What it means |
|---|---|
| Vertical | The specific market segment to prospect within |
| Funding stage | Range of funding stages to include (e.g. pre-seed to Series A) |
| Headcount | Maximum employee count a company can have to qualify |
If any input is missing, ask for it before proceeding.
The Eight-Step Workflow
Step 1 — Understand the vertical
Before searching for any company, form a precise understanding of the vertical:
- What core problem does it solve
- What type of product a company in this vertical builds
- Who the primary technical ICP is inside those companies
- What the AI disruption angle looks like in this space
The exact-fit test: Every company in the output list should feel like it belongs in the same sentence as every other company on the list. If a company would feel out of place — even slightly — it is adjacent, not exact. Adjacent companies never go in the list.
Read references/vertical-definitions.md for definitions of all known
verticals. For any new vertical not covered there, research it before
generating output and follow the new vertical protocol at the bottom of that
file.
Step 2 — Apply the hard filters
Every company must pass all five simultaneously:
- Exact vertical fit — builds a product that is exactly in the vertical, not around it
- SaaS / product-first — not a services company, not services-heavy
- Developer-facing product — a product that developers can discover, try, and adopt
- Funding stage — falls within the range provided by the user
- Headcount — falls within the limit provided by the user
If a company passes the vertical test but fails funding or headcount → exclude. If a company passes funding and headcount but is adjacent → exclude. All five filters must be satisfied simultaneously, with no exceptions.
Step 3 — Research companies across all credible sources
Do not rely on a fixed list of databases. Cast wide. Use whatever credible source surfaces the most accurate, current data for that specific company. The goal is accuracy, not source loyalty.
Clay enrichment (start here for funding, headcount, and tech stack)
Call get-credits-available to check budget before enriching many companies.
Then call find-and-enrich-company for each candidate to retrieve funding
stage, round amount, lead investor, date, current headcount, tech stack
(BuiltWith + HG Insights aggregated), LinkedIn URL, and HQ location. Clay
aggregates Crunchbase and LinkedIn data — always verify headcount and funding
from one additional manual source before including any company in the list.
Note: Clay does not cover developer and open-source signals (GitHub, npm, Docker Hub, etc.) — use the manual sources below for those.
Funding and company data Crunchbase, PitchBook, Tracxn, CB Insights, Dealroom, Harmonic, Carta, Companies House (UK), SEC EDGAR (US public filings)
Discovery and prospecting Y Combinator company directory, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, TechEU, Sifted (Europe), The Information, StrictlyVC, Bloomberg, Forbes, Business Wire, PR Newswire
Headcount and people LinkedIn, RocketReach, ZoomInfo, Apollo, LeadIQ, Glassdoor, job boards (a company hiring 10 developer marketing roles is a signal in itself)
Developer and open-source signals GitHub (stars, forks, contributors, release cadence), npm, PyPI, Docker Hub, Stack Overflow trends, Hacker News Show HN posts, Product Hunt launches
Revenue and growth estimates Sacra, Contrary Research, Latka, Growjo, SimilarWeb (traffic as a proxy), SEMrush
Competitive positioning and third-party analysis G2, Capterra, StackShare, StackOne, OpenAlternative, analyst reports (Gartner, Forrester, IDC where public), technical review roundups from credible blogs
News and recent signals Google News for the company name + current year, company blog, company changelog, press releases, founder interviews, podcast appearances
The rule: Use whichever source gives the most accurate and current data for that specific data point. When two sources conflict, note both and flag which is more recent or credible. Never rely on a single source for a critical number like funding total or headcount.
Search specifically, not broadly. Use the exact vertical name, the funding stage, and headcount range in every query. Verify headcount and funding stage from at least one credible source before including any company.
Step 4 — Map one Signal per company
Check Clay first: Call ask-question-about-accounts with the company name
to surface recent events before manual news searching. If Clay returns a
verifiable signal that meets the criteria below, use it as the starting point.
If not, fall back to manual sources from Step 3.
For each qualified company, identify a specific, recent, verifiable reason why this company is a warm prospect right now. Must be one of:
- A funding round (name the round, amount, lead investor, date)
- A product launch or major feature release
- A new partnership or enterprise customer announcement
- A hiring spike in engineering or product
- A public benchmark, award, or analyst recognition
- A market trigger that directly affects them
The signal must answer: why now — not six months ago, not six months from now.
Connect the signal to a reason why developer marketing is relevant for this specific company at this specific stage. Do not leave the connection implicit.
Step 5 — Source every Signal data point
For every number, claim, or fact in the signal, find and record the source URL. Apply the three-tier classification:
| Tier | Definition | How to label it |
|---|---|---|
| Directly sourced | A verifiable stat from a credible third-party source | List the URL — no flag needed |
| Self-reported | A claim from the company's own blog, press release, or CEO statement — not independently verified | Flag with ⚠ and note it is self-reported |
| Inferred | A logical conclusion drawn from two or more sourced numbers | State explicitly that it is an inference and list underlying source URLs |
If a data point cannot be sourced, do not include it in the signal.
Step 6 — Map one Pain Point per company
The specific developer marketing gap that makes this company a buyer. Must be:
- Specific to this company's stage, product, and competitive situation
- A consequence statement — what happens to them if they don't fix this gap
- Tied to specific numbers and competitor context, not generic language
- Never "they need more awareness" — always concrete and tied to their specific growth moment
Common pain point patterns:
- Large open-source community (GitHub stars) vs low commercial conversion (ARR gap)
- Competitor has X× more funding and headcount but same market
- Community events and developer presence concentrated in one region only
- All enterprise customers from one channel (relationships, partnerships) with no inbound
- Headcount too small for a dedicated developer marketing function at current stage
Step 7 — Source every Pain Point data point
Apply the same three-tier sourcing system as Step 5. For each number or claim in the pain point:
- Find the source URL
- Classify as directly sourced, self-reported (⚠), or inferred
- Self-reported claims must be framed in outreach copy as "Company X claims..." not as independently verified facts
- Inferences must be labelled as such — they are strategic observations drawn from real numbers, not citations
For self-reported stats: always search for the original source (usually the company's own blog or a CEO quote in an investor profile). Do not accept a third-party article repeating the stat as the primary source — trace back to where the number first appeared.
Step 8 — Produce the unified output table
Output every qualifying company in a rendered visual HTML widget with exactly these nine columns:
| Column | What goes in it |
|---|---|
| Company | Name + funding badge + founded year + headcount |
| URL | Website URL (clickable) |
| LinkedIn company page URL (clickable) | |
| Headcount | Employee count |
| Signal + Why Dev Marketing | Signal tied to why dev marketing is relevant now |
| Signal Sources | Numbered source links (S1, S2...) — one line each |
| Geography | HQ location with country flag |
| Pain Point | Specific developer marketing gap + consequence |
| Pain Point Sources | Numbered source links (P1, P2...) — one line each, ⚠ on self-reported |
Use the visualizer to render as a clean HTML widget. The table must be horizontally scrollable. Sort rows by funding stage: Bootstrap → Pre-seed → Seed → Series A → Series B → Series C+
See references/output-format.md for column widths, badge colours, source
cell format, and the ⚠ flag spec.
Honesty Rules
These apply throughout the workflow and override any pressure to produce a longer list:
- A short honest list always beats a long padded list
- Never add adjacent companies to reach a minimum count
- Never add companies that are around the vertical rather than exactly in it
- If nothing qualifies under the given criteria, say so clearly and explain why
- If the funding cap is causing a short list because the vertical moves fast, inform the user and offer to remove the cap
- Never state a self-reported company claim as an independently verified fact
- Never present an inference as a citation
Output Format Reference
See references/output-format.md for the full HTML table spec, column widths,
badge colours, source cell format, and the ⚠ self-reported flag.
Vertical Definitions Reference
See references/vertical-definitions.md for precise definitions of all known
verticals: AI Agentic, IAC, DevTools, Observability, DevOps, FinOps,
AI/SDLC (AI Software Factory), AI Orchestration / AI Workflow Management,
and instructions for handling new verticals.