Skip to content This library is free, offered as dana. If it helps your work, donate here →
penguin tree ai
← back to libraryDonate here

This is one of 3,622 free prompts in the penguin tree ai library. Sign up once and the whole library opens, with new prompts by email.

open the library →

Funder prospect prioritizer

Scores and ranks a list of potential funders against an organization's profile across strategic fit, giving capacity, accessibility, and relationship warmth, producing a tiered cultivation list with a weighted score…

download .md

Purpose

Turn a raw list of potential funders into a ranked, tiered cultivation pipeline — scoring each prospect on fit, capacity, accessibility, and warmth so development teams spend their limited time on the funders most likely to give. Eliminates the guesswork and gut-feel triage that leaves high-potential prospects buried and low-odds funders overworked.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when the user asks to:

  • Prioritize or rank a list of potential funders, foundations, or major donors
  • Decide which grant prospects to pursue first this quarter
  • Build or refresh a cultivation pipeline from funder research
  • Score prospects for strategic fit before writing LOIs or proposals
  • Triage a long prospect list down to a focused Tier 1 target set
  • Justify to a board or ED why certain funders are being prioritized

Inputs Required

Before starting, collect:

  • Funder list: The prospects to evaluate — names plus any known details (funding areas, typical grant size, geography, deadlines)
  • Organizational profile: Mission, program areas, geography served, annual budget, and 501(c)(3) status or equivalent
  • Funding need: The specific program, project, or general operating need being funded, and dollar amount sought
  • Existing relationships: Any board, staff, or volunteer connections to funders; prior grants; current contacts
  • Capacity constraints: How many prospects the team can realistically cultivate this cycle (e.g., 5, 10, 20)
  • Time horizon: The window for this pipeline (this quarter, this fiscal year, next 6 months)
  • Dealbreakers: Any funders or funder types that are off-limits (conflicts, mission misalignment, prior declines)

If capacity or time horizon is missing, assume a Tier 1 target of 8–10 prospects over the current quarter and note the assumption.

Instructions

Step 1: Confirm the Scoring Model

Score every prospect on four weighted dimensions (0–5 each). Default weights, adjustable if the user specifies priorities:

  • Strategic Fit (35%): Alignment between funder priorities and this org's mission, program area, geography, and population served
  • Giving Capacity (25%): Whether the funder's typical grant size matches the ask, and whether they have room in their giving budget/cycle
  • Accessibility (20%): How open the funder is — accepts unsolicited proposals vs. invitation-only, LOI process clarity, deadline feasibility within the time horizon
  • Relationship Warmth (20%): Strength of existing connection — from cold (no contact) to warm (active relationship or board tie)

State the weights being used before scoring so the ranking is auditable.

Step 2: Score Each Prospect

For every funder, assign a 0–5 score on each dimension with a one-line rationale:

  • Strategic Fit scale: 5 = named priority match on program + geography; 3 = adjacent program area or broader geography; 1 = tangential; 0 = out of scope
  • Giving Capacity scale: 5 = ask sits mid-range of their typical grants; 3 = ask near their floor or ceiling; 1 = ask is far outside their range; 0 = grant size unknown and likely too small
  • Accessibility scale: 5 = open application with a deadline inside the horizon; 3 = LOI-first or rolling; 1 = invitation-only with a possible path; 0 = closed to unsolicited requests
  • Relationship Warmth scale: 5 = board/staff has a direct active tie; 3 = a prior grant or warm intro path exists; 1 = mutual connection identifiable; 0 = fully cold

Compute the weighted score (0–100) for each prospect: (Fit×7) + (Capacity×5) + (Accessibility×4) + (Warmth×4).

Step 3: Tier the Prospects

Sort by weighted score and assign tiers:

  • Tier 1 — Pursue now: Score ≥ 70. High fit and a real path in. These get proposals/LOIs this cycle.
  • Tier 2 — Cultivate: Score 50–69. Strong fit but cold or access-limited. Build relationship before asking.
  • Tier 3 — Monitor: Score 35–49. Watch for changed priorities, new access, or a warm intro.
  • Tier 4 — Deprioritize: Score < 35 or hits a dealbreaker. Note why and set aside.

Cap Tier 1 at the team's stated capacity. If more prospects qualify than capacity allows, keep the highest scores in Tier 1 and move the rest to the top of Tier 2 with a note.

Step 4: Assign a Next Action per Prospect

For every Tier 1 and Tier 2 prospect, specify one concrete next action and owner-type:

  • Access moves: Submit LOI, request a call, apply by [deadline], review 990/grant history
  • Warmth moves: Ask [board member] for intro, invite to a program tour, add to newsletter, schedule a cultivation touch
  • Note the next deadline if one exists within the time horizon.

Step 5: Summarize the Pipeline

Produce a one-paragraph strategic read: where the strongest opportunities concentrate, any capacity gap (too few warm Tier 1s), and the single highest-leverage move for the cycle.

Output Format

  • Structure: Scoring model statement → ranked prospect table → tier breakdown with next actions → pipeline summary
  • Length: 700–1,100 words plus the scoring table
  • Format: A ranked table (Funder, Fit, Capacity, Access, Warmth, Weighted Score, Tier), followed by tier-grouped next-action lists in structured bullets, closing with a prose summary paragraph
  • Sections: Scoring Model & Weights → Ranked Prospect Table → Tier 1 (with next actions) → Tier 2 (with next actions) → Tier 3 & 4 (brief) → Pipeline Summary
  • Tone: Development director — pragmatic, resource-conscious, decisive; recommends where to spend limited cultivation time without hedging

Quality Checklist

Before delivering output, verify:

  • [ ] Every prospect on the input list appears in the ranked table with all four dimension scores
  • [ ] Weighted scores are computed with the stated formula and sort the table correctly
  • [ ] Tier assignments follow the score thresholds, and Tier 1 respects the team's capacity cap
  • [ ] Each dimension score has a one-line rationale — not a bare number
  • [ ] Every Tier 1 and Tier 2 prospect has a specific next action, not "follow up"
  • [ ] Any dealbreaker prospect is flagged in Tier 4 with the reason stated

Notes

  • Relationship warmth is the most undervalued dimension — a warm Tier 2 often converts faster than a cold Tier 1; flag any prospect where an existing tie could be activated.
  • When grant size or funding priorities are unknown, score conservatively and add "verify via 990/grant history" as the next action rather than inflating the score.
  • If the team's capacity is smaller than the number of qualifying prospects, the highest-leverage advice is usually to cultivate fewer funders more deeply — say so explicitly in the summary.

How to use this skill

This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.

Installing in Claude Code:

  • ~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md — auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)
  • <your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md — auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)

Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.

Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:

  1. Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
  2. Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits

For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills