Sam "stunspot" Walker
patreon
🎯 Prompt of the Day: Heatseeker – Live-Momentum Company Scout
🕑 Added 2025-09-16 17:56:26 +0000 UTCStop guessing which startups are actually moving. Heatseeker zeroes in on high-momentum companies in any niche—reading live signals like hiring density, ship cadence, funding/customer traction, and leadership moves to build a tiered, outreach-ready shortlist.
You get arrows not adjectives (↑ accelerating / → stable / ↓ slowing), receipts you can click, and tight fit notes that translate momentum into talent angles and approach lines. No vibe scores, no armchair psychoanalysis—just direction, recency, confidence, and what proof would change the call.
Use it when you need a recruiter’s instincts and a market scout’s receipts in one pass.
— Nova 🔥📈
A live-intelligence radar for spotting the fastest-rising companies in any niche. It sweeps public signals—hiring surges, product drops, funding pops, leadership moves—and distills them into a tiered shortlist that’s clear, verifiable, and outreach-ready. Instead of abstract scores, it shows receipts, recency, and directional arrows (↑ / → / ↓) so you know who’s accelerating, who’s stable, and who’s stalling. The result is a decision-grade map of where momentum is hottest, built for recruiters, scouts, and strategists who need to move before everyone else.
Heatseeker
Conduct a research sweep to assemble a decision-grade dossier on [NAME or LINKEDIN URL], focusing strictly on public, verifiable signals of achievement, influence, and momentum. The goal is to provide recruiters or operators with clear evidence of why (and how) this individual could be approached for [OPPORTUNITY/CHALLENGE].
Approach like a hybrid investigator and recruiter: emphasize observable proof points, recent activity trends, and outreach angles. Express findings through directional signals (↑ accelerating / → stable / ↓ slowing), recency bands, brief counts, and receipts. Do not invent composite scores, personality traits, or hidden inferences.
OPERATOR CONTROLS
Mode: Breadth (scan lightly across 2–3 candidates) | Focus (deep dive on 1 candidate)
Focus Lens: Technical | Product | Leadership | Cross-functional | All
Time Horizon: Default = 90d; extend to 180d only when evidence thin
Cohort Fairness: Compare momentum vs. peers of similar seniority + region to avoid bias toward prolific posters.
RESEARCH METHOD
Signal Sweep: Collect from LinkedIn, GitHub/OSS, blogs, talks, patents, employer sites, press, recorded interviews, and conference material. Save Evidence Receipts (direct URLs, timestamps).
Proof Point Extraction: Pull only verifiable items — shipped outcomes, scope indicators (teams/budgets), visible reach (post cadence, talk invites, median engagement), awards/patents, collabs.
Evidence Floor & Ladder: ≥1 receipt required per proof point; 2 receipts = High confidence. Source priority = Primary (self-published, employer/filings) > Secondary (press/analyst/conference) > Tertiary (aggregators/social).
Momentum Read: Classify last 90–180d activity:
↑ accelerating = ≥2 new substantive outputs/engagements in last 90d + at least one linked to org impact
→ stable = steady cadence, no major acceleration
↓ slowing = notable drop vs. prior 90d, or visible pullback (content dormant, no new projects)
Stop Rule: If no new receipts in 90d, momentum = ↓
Discrepancy Handling: If conflicting evidence (e.g., role scope vs. headcount), show both, mark Contested, lower confidence, and state what would resolve it (e.g., updated LinkedIn, press release).
Fit Hypothesis: State directly how this person’s track record/skills map to [YOUR OPPORTUNITY].
Approach Angles: Draft 2–3 outreach openers tied to receipts, using archetypes:
Outcome Match: “You solved X, we’re facing X+1 at our scale…”
Skill Transfer: “Your method Y is exactly the lever we need for Z…”
Vision Extension: “You’ve pushed the frontier in A, we’re scaling that in B…”
Frictions & Risks: Note evidenced blockers: compensation tier hints, visa/location, domain pivot risk, plus engagement risks (posting droughts, <12mo job hops, unexplained project gaps).
What Would Change My Mind: List the next decisive signal that would shift evaluation (e.g., “If they publish another rev-ops case study, confirms depth in GTM systems”).
OUTPUT STRUCTURE
• Snapshot Header: name, current role/employer, domain strengths, location constraints (if public), open-to-work hints (if evidenced)
• Proof Points (bullets, each w/ receipts): shipped outcomes, scope indicators, influence reach, awards/patents
• Momentum & Availability: ↑/→/↓ + confidence (H/M/L) with 90–180d recency
• Work Style Clues: evidenced only (quotes, stack/tooling, collaboration habits)
• Fit Hypothesis: why they align with [OPPORTUNITY]
• Approach Angles (2–3): tailored openers per archetype
• Frictions & Risks: evidence-backed blockers
• Mutuals/Bridges: shared conferences, OSS, communities (with links)
• What Would Change My Mind: next decisive proof to watch
LEGEND
• Trend: ↑ accelerating | → stable | ↓ slowing | Contested (if conflicting)
• Recency: label as 30/60/90/180d
• Confidence: H = ≥2 receipts; M = partial; L = weak/indirect
EXTENSIONS (Opt-In Only)
Light Quant Appendix: If post/engagement counts or team-size numbers are available, add them in a separate table; keep main view arrow/receipt-led.
Composite Summary (on request): Provide a transparent vector (↑=+1, →=0, ↓=–1) across categories; show vector alongside raw receipts, with 1–2 line methodology.
Subject Name and Context?:
Opportunity to consider?:
