GTM audit — 23 criteria, 4 blocks
A standalone skill. Does not require Notion, a template, or other skills: the input is whatever exists (website, LinkedIn,
CRM export, call notes, answers to questions), the output is a single document in the chat or
in a file, wherever the user says. Document language = user's language.
What it does
- Collects evidence for each of the 23 criteria.
- Assigns a maturity score of 0–4 with one line of evidence and a source.
- Calculates the score by block, the overall weighted score, coverage, and band.
- Names the three most critical gaps and a list of actions for the first 30 days.
Hard rules
- A score is not assigned without evidence. No evidence → "no data", the criterion is excluded from the
weighted total, and coverage % shows how many criteria were actually assessed. Unknown =
a discovery question, not a guess.
- A document without practice = maximum 2. We assess practice, not the presence of a file.
- If you hesitate between two scores — assign the lower one.
- Deliverability infrastructure (domains, SPF/DKIM/DMARC, warmup, limits) is assessed in 2.2
Outbound, not in the data block.
- If the user has provided little data — first ask 8–12 questions (2–3 per block), then assess.
Do not mix the two rounds: questions separately, assessment separately.
Maturity scale (for each criterion)
| Score |
Level |
How to recognize |
| 0 |
Absent |
There is neither a document nor practice |
| 1 |
Ad hoc |
Lives in the CEO's head, done case by case |
| 2 |
Documented |
The document exists, the team does not use it daily |
| 3 |
Works |
The practice is stable, the team lives by it without reminders |
| 4 |
Measured |
Works + there are metrics + regularly reviewed |
23 criteria
Block weights: Team 20% · Processes 30% · Data 25% · Interfaces 25%.
Block score = the average of its criteria (excluding "no data"). Block % = score / 4 × 100.
Overall score = Σ (block % × weight).
/01 Team — 20%
| # |
Criterion |
A score of 4 looks like this |
| 1.1 |
Role coverage matches the stage |
SDR / Sales / AM / Marketing are separated to the extent the stage requires; there is no "orphan" role |
| 1.2 |
Seniority is sufficient for the tasks |
There is no role where the person's level is lower than needed for the current goals |
| 1.3 |
Independence from the CEO |
New deals are closed without the CEO; their absence for 90 days does not stop sales |
| 1.4 |
Compensation is tied to results |
Each role has a variable component tied to the metrics of its funnel stage |
| 1.5 |
Onboarding and development |
A new person reaches productivity according to plan; there are playbooks and a development plan |
/02 Processes — 30%
| # |
Criterion |
A score of 4 looks like this |
| 2.1a |
GTM strategy: segments + ICP |
Segments are fixed with an understanding of size, competition, and growth; the ICP is actually used in list building, campaigns, and qualification; the buyer's journey is described |
| 2.1b |
GTM strategy: offer · positioning · value prop |
Key services are formulated as problem → result for a specific segment; positioning is differentiated from direct competitors in the client's words; there is competitive analysis |
| 2.2 |
Outbound / demand capture |
The process from list to meeting is described and repeatable; the infrastructure is in order (separate sending domains, SPF/DKIM/DMARC, warmup, LinkedIn profiles, deliverability checks); hypotheses are managed systematically; nurture exists; replies are handled < 24 hours |
| 2.3 |
Inbound / demand gen |
At least one channel is run deliberately, has a described process, and a year of statistics |
| 2.4a |
Sales: process, calls, playbook |
Discovery → proposal → close is described; calls are recorded and reviewed; the objections playbook is alive; the proposal process has an owner and deadlines |
| 2.4b |
Sales: CRM + funnel |
A funnel with stages and transition criteria; the status of any deal is visible without calling the manager |
| 2.5 |
AM · retention · referrals |
Onboarding, account planning, feedback collection, and upsell exist as a system; referral is managed; conversions are calculated per client |
| 2.6 |
Business processes and toolset |
The control and reporting system works (task manager, weekly rhythm of reviewing numbers); automation tools are documented |
/03 Data quality — 25%
| # |
Criterion |
What a score of 4 looks like |
| 3.1 |
Single source of truth |
One CRM answers “what’s going on with this account”; spreadsheets only as temporary working files |
| 3.2 |
Database hygiene |
Duplicates and dead contacts are cleaned regularly; key fields are filled in |
| 3.3 |
Enrichment and verification |
Contacts are enriched and verified before every campaign; bounce < 3% |
| 3.4 |
Stack integration |
Data flows between tools without manual transfer; the stack is documented |
/04 Interfaces and materials — 25%
| # |
Criterion |
What a score of 4 looks like |
| 4.1 |
Website |
Within 10 seconds it’s clear whom you serve and what problem you solve; there’s a path to conversion; case studies are available |
| 4.2 |
LinkedIn profiles |
SDR / Sales / CEO profiles are set up for outbound and withstand a prospect’s scrutiny |
| 4.3 |
Company page and social proof |
Active page; directories with reviews; references ready |
| 4.4 |
Case studies |
For each key ICP there is a case study with result numbers |
| 4.5 |
Deck і proposal |
They sell the offer and the result; up to date; proposal → won conversion is known |
| 4.6 |
Sequences і templates |
Copy tailored to the ICP, personalization is substantive; variants are tested |
Interpretation of the overall score
| Score |
Band |
What it means |
Horizon to a system |
| 0–25% |
🔴 Critical |
There is no system; sales = the founder’s personal efforts. Foundation from scratch |
12+ months |
| 26–50% |
🟠 Weak |
There are activities, but no predictable results. Investment in data, processes, and the team |
6–9 months |
| 51–75% |
🟡 Working |
The channel brings in leads; the system is partial. We fix selectively |
3–6 months |
| 76–100% |
🟢 System |
The system works. Next comes tuning and scaling |
targeted sprints |
Cross-check with the company stage: if revenue says "stage 2+" but the score is < 50% — risk zone: growth
rests on referrals, the system lags behind revenue. This is the main argument for the conversation about what
to build first.
Process
- Intake. What's at the input: website, company LinkedIn and 3–5 team profiles, CRM export,
call notes, documents. If only a URL was given — pull the website and LinkedIn yourself, ask for the rest.
- Questions (only if there's little data): 8–12 items, 2–3 per block, each closes a specific
criterion. Wait for answers.
- Assessment. Go through the 23 criteria block by block. For each: score 0–4 · one line of evidence · source
(URL, file, "per the CEO"). Without evidence — "no data" + the question that would close it.
- Summary. Table by blocks (average score, %, weight, contribution), overall score, coverage %,
band, cross-check with stage.
- Three gaps. Three criteria with the greatest impact on the result (low score × high block weight ×
proximity to money). For each: what exactly is broken, what it costs, what to do.
- First 30 days. 5–7 actions. Each: the artifact that should appear · owner · deadline.
Not "improve the CRM", but "a funnel with 6 stages and transition criteria, owner Head of Sales, by the 15th".
Output format
# GTM-аудит: [компанія] · [дата]
Загальний бал: NN% · бенд · покриття: N із 23 критеріїв
Крос-чек зі стадією: [одне речення]
## Скорборд
| Критерій | Бал | Доказ | Джерело |
| 1.1 … | | | |
… усі 23 рядки, «немає даних» де немає доказу …
## По блоках
| Блок | Середній бал | % | Вага | Внесок |
## Три критичні діри
1. [критерій] — що зламано · що коштує · що робити
## Перші 30 днів
| Дія | Артефакт | Власник | Термін |
## Відкриті запитання на discovery
- …
In the chat after the document: 5 lines — score, worst block, three actions, how many criteria have no data.
