Return My TimeBook a Discovery Call

Revenue Operations

Create Lead-Routing Rules

Draft deterministic lead-routing rules from approved outcomes, territories, capacity, owners, and response commitments without touching a live CRM.

By Nick Spisak

Quick facts

Best for
Owners · Founder-operators · Sales leaders
Prompt type
Efficiency
Expected result
A deterministic routing table with rule precedence, evidence requirements, unknown and insufficient-data fallbacks, collision tests, and human approval checks.
Time saved
60-90 minutes per routing draft
Required inputs
APPROVED QUALIFICATION OUTCOMES · TERRITORIES · SERVICE CAPACITY · ROUTING OWNERS · RESPONSE SLAS · OBSERVED LEAD FIELDS · ROUTING RULE OWNER
Works with
ChatGPT + Claude

What this prompt does

  • Turns supplied routing constraints into an ordered decision table with one explainable destination per state.
  • Exposes collisions, missing owners, and insufficient-data fallbacks before operational changes.

When to use

  • When a service business needs reviewable routing logic across territories, teams, capacity limits, and response SLAs.

When not to use

  • Do not use it to alter live routing, assign a real lead, update an account, or contact anyone without named human review and approval.

The prompt

#CONTEXT:
Draft deterministic lead-routing rules for a service business using only supplied qualification outcomes, constraints, owners, and observed lead fields. Return a routing design for human review; do not execute it.

#INPUTS:
- Approved qualification outcomes and definitions: [APPROVED QUALIFICATION OUTCOMES]
- Approved territories and tie-break rules: [TERRITORIES]
- Current service capacity by team or offer: [SERVICE CAPACITY]
- Named routing owners and escalation destinations: [ROUTING OWNERS]
- Approved response SLAs by outcome: [RESPONSE SLAS]
- Fields actually observed in the lead record, including blanks: [OBSERVED LEAD FIELDS]
- Named human routing-rule owner: [ROUTING RULE OWNER]

#INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Normalize the supplied rule inputs without creating missing territory, capacity, owner, or SLA facts.
2. Build an ordered decision table whose conditions are mutually exclusive or have an explicit precedence rule.
3. Identify every collision, uncovered state, unavailable owner, and stale capacity fact.
4. Mark "Unknown — Insufficient data" whenever required evidence is absent or conflicting. Recommend the named escalation destination; do not guess, invent, infer, or fabricate a route.
5. Do not qualify, disqualify, score, or route a person based on a protected trait or a proxy for a protected trait. Flag suspected proxies for removal and human review.
6. Preserve the approved response SLA as a target, not a promise of availability or service.
7. Include a safe fallback for unknown territory, exhausted capacity, missing owner, and incomplete qualification.
8. Do not access or update a CRM, assign or route a live lead, contact anyone, send a message, or change a routing rule.
9. A named human owner must review and approve every qualification, disqualification, scoring, or routing rule change before operational use.

#RESPONSE FORMAT:
## Input and conflict audit
- Fact or conflict — source — owner to confirm

## Deterministic routing table
| Priority | Qualification outcome | Territory condition | Capacity condition | Destination owner | SLA target | Unknown / fallback path | Evidence required |
|---:|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## Collision and coverage checks
- Test case — expected destination — unresolved issue

## Human approval checklist
- Rule owner named
- Fallbacks tested
- Protected-trait and proxy review complete
- Rule changes approved before operational use

Input checklist

  • APPROVED QUALIFICATION OUTCOMES
  • TERRITORIES
  • SERVICE CAPACITY
  • ROUTING OWNERS
  • RESPONSE SLAS
  • OBSERVED LEAD FIELDS
  • ROUTING RULE OWNER

Example input

Fictional example — APPROVED QUALIFICATION OUTCOMES: Qualified, verified disqualifier, and insufficient data. TERRITORIES: Cedar County goes to Central Team; Pine County goes to North Team; unknown county goes to intake review. SERVICE CAPACITY: Central has three assessment slots this week; North is at review threshold. ROUTING OWNERS: Central owner Elena; North owner Marco; intake escalation Priya. RESPONSE SLAS: Qualified within two business hours; insufficient data within four. OBSERVED LEAD FIELDS: County blank; service request recurring maintenance; qualification outcome insufficient data. ROUTING RULE OWNER: Elena, Revenue Operations Manager.

Expected output structure

  • A deterministic routing table with rule precedence, evidence requirements, unknown and insufficient-data fallbacks, collision tests, and human approval checks.

Customize this prompt

  • Test the table with boundary cases such as missing territory and simultaneous capacity constraints.
  • Name one owned fallback instead of silently dropping leads that match no rule.

Guardrails

  • Do not qualify, disqualify, score, route, or recommend an adverse decision based on a protected trait or any proxy for a protected trait.
  • Do not invent missing territory, capacity, owner, SLA, or lead facts; use Unknown — Insufficient data.
  • A named human owner must review and approve every qualification, disqualification, scoring, routing rule change, policy exception, account update, external message, price, promise, permission, and legal commitment before any operational use.
  • The assistant must not access or change a live CRM, assign or route a live lead, contact anyone, or send an external message.

KEEP BUILDING

Related prompts

Related articles

NEXT STEP

Next step

Map where revenue is leaking.