Skip to content
Back to skills

Tam Score

ASecurity

Score and rank movement leader candidates using the Seven Gates and 100-point Movemental rubric

  • 2 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added October 26, 2026
content-marketinggobash

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned October 26, 2026

npx -y skills add JoshuaShepherd/my-skills --skill tam-score --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Tam Score?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Tam Score
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/joshuashepherd-tam-score/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/joshuashepherd-tam-score)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: tam-score
description: Score and rank movement leader candidates using the Seven Gates and 100-point Movemental rubric
user-invocable: true
allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, Agent
---

# TAM Score: Evaluate Movement Leader Candidates

Apply the full Movemental evaluation rubric to one or more candidates, producing scored profiles and tier assignments.

## Invocation

```
/tam-score $ARGUMENTS
```

**Arguments:**
- One or more candidate names. Examples:
  - `/tam-score Mark Sayers` — score a single candidate
  - `/tam-score all unscored` — score all candidates in the UNSCORED section
  - `/tam-score rescore 50-75` — rescore candidates ranked 50-75

---

## Before Starting

1. **Read the rubric** at `intelligence/leader-research/tam-search/03-RUBRIC.md` — this is the scoring authority
2. **Read existing profiles** at `intelligence/leader-research/tam-search/02-CANDIDATE-PROFILES.md` — for format and benchmarks
3. **Read the master list** at `intelligence/leader-research/tam-search/01-MASTER-RANKED-LIST.md` — for current rankings
4. **Note the benchmarks**: Alan Hirsch = 100/100, Brad Brisco = 88/100, Michael Frost = 94/100

---

## Phase 1: Research the Candidate

For each candidate being scored, gather data via web search:

| Data Point | Sources to Check |
|------------|-----------------|
| Published books | Amazon, Goodreads, publisher sites |
| Current role/affiliations | Personal website, LinkedIn, org sites |
| Audience size | Twitter/X, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, newsletter |
| Speaking/conferences | Conference sites, event listings |
| Education/training | Seminary affiliations, academic posts |
| Co-authors/endorsers | Book pages, blurbs, co-publications |
| Courses/training programs | Personal site, org platforms |
| Revenue signals | Book sales rank, course pricing, speaking fees, consulting |
| Movement evidence | Orgs founded, networks catalyzed, practitioners multiplied |
| Theological depth | Book content, published articles, teaching |

---

## Phase 2: Seven Gates Assessment

Evaluate each gate with a verdict and 1-2 sentence evidence:

```markdown
### Seven Gates Assessment

| Gate | Verdict | Evidence |
|------|---------|----------|
| 1. Embodied Practice (10+ years) | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |
| 2. Multiplication Evidence | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |
| 3. Movement Over Institution | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |
| 4. Prophetic Edge | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |
| 5. Credibility Through Suffering | PASS/N/A | [evidence or "not assessed"] |
| 6. Theological Depth | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |
| 7. Network Coherence (Scenius Test) | PASS/FAIL | [evidence] |
```

**If a candidate FAILS any gate (except Gate 5):** Flag them as "Does Not Pass Gates" with an explanation. Do not proceed to quantitative scoring unless the failure is borderline and worth discussion.

---

## Phase 3: 100-Point Quantitative Scoring

Apply the rubric exactly as defined in `03-RUBRIC.md`:

```markdown
### Scoring Breakdown

| Category | Score |
|----------|-------|
| 1A: Theological Foundation (15) | /15 |
| 1B: Movement Practice Integration (10) | /10 |
| 2A: Current Audience Size (10) | /10 |
| 2B: Audience Quality & Engagement (10) | /10 |
| 3A: Content Quality & Depth (12) | /12 |
| 3B: Content Consistency & Platform Readiness (8) | /8 |
| 4A: Current Revenue Streams (8) | /8 |
| 4B: Platform Business Model Alignment (7) | /7 |
| 5A: Existing Network Connections (6) | /6 |
| 5B: Collaboration History & Referral Potential (4) | /4 |
| 6A: Leadership Development & Mentoring (6) | /6 |
| 6B: Community Building & Platform Ownership Mindset (4) | /4 |
| **Subtotal** | **/100** |
| Bonus: Underrepresented demographic | +0-5 |
| Bonus: Emerging voice (<40, <10 yrs) | +0-3 |
| Bonus: Geographic diversity | +0-2 |
| Bonus: Gender diversity | +0-1 |
| **TOTAL** | **/100+bonus** |
```

For each sub-score, provide a 1-sentence justification.

---

## Phase 4: Tier Assignment

| Tier | Score Range | Priority | Action |
|------|-------------|----------|--------|
| Flagship | 90-100 | IMMEDIATE | Maximum investment, founding cohort |
| Proven | 75-89 | HIGH | Standard platform development |
| Emerging | 60-74 | SELECTIVE | Targeted support, mentoring |
| Pipeline | 45-59 | DEVELOPMENT | Growth focus, future potential |
| Below 45 | <45 | NOT READY | Monitor only |

---

## Phase 5: Write the Profile

Append the full profile to `intelligence/leader-research/tam-search/02-CANDIDATE-PROFILES.md` using this format:

```markdown
## #[rank] [Full Name] - [score]/100

**Domain**: [primary domain]
**Affiliations**: [key orgs]
**Notable Works**: [books, frameworks]
**Audience**: [size estimate]

**Seven Gates**: [PASS ALL / FAIL: Gate X]

**Scoring Breakdown**:
| Category | Score |
|----------|-------|
| [full breakdown] |

**Notes**: [key observations, network value, risks, unique contributions]
```

Update the master list ranking in `01-MASTER-RANKED-LIST.md` — insert at the correct position by score.

---

## Phase 6: Comparative Notes

After scoring, provide:

1. **How this candidate compares** to the nearest-scored existing candidates
2. **Unique contribution** they would bring to the scenius
3. **Risk factors** (potential for dilution, controversy, misalignment)
4. **Recommended next action** (profile, reflected understanding, outreach)

---

## Key Rules

1. **Use only live-sourced data.** Every score must be backed by verifiable information from web search.
2. **Apply the rubric exactly** — do not invent new criteria or modify point ranges.
3. **Benchmark against Hirsch (100), Frost (94), Brisco (88)** — these are the calibration points. A score of 90+ should genuinely rival these leaders' profiles.
4. **Be honest about gaps.** If data is unavailable for a scoring category, score conservatively and note "insufficient data" rather than guessing high.
5. **The Scenius Test (Gate 7) is critical.** A high-scoring candidate who would dilute network coherence should be flagged, not just scored.
6. **Never inflate scores** to fill quota. A smaller, higher-quality TAM is better than a padded list.
7. **Preserve all existing profiles** — append new ones, never overwrite.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.