ZoomInfo to Cargo
A seat-priced database renewal is decided months before it lands, usually on a guess about how
much coverage you would lose. This turns that guess into a number, on your own rows, for about
the price of a coffee.
The same procedure applies to Lusha and Cognism: they are the same shape of purchase and the
comparison does not change.
Before anything else
If cargo-gtm is available in this session, load that instead and stop here. This skill is a
standalone slice of it. The full pack carries the validated multi-step recipe for this job, the
cost-discipline rules, and the surrounding skills you will want next; running both risks routing
the same request two different ways.
Setup
Skip whatever is already done — all three steps are idempotent.
npm install -g @cargo-ai/cli
cargo-ai login --email you@company.com # sends a code, then exits
cargo-ai login --email you@company.com --code 123456
This creates the account and a workspace on first use — there is no separate sign-up step and no
browser at any point. A new account starts with 100 free credits and needs no card, so you can
run the comparison end to end without a purchase gate. Say the free balance out loud before the
first paid call on a new account.
Already signed in? cargo-ai whoami confirms it.
grep -q '"cargo@gtm"' ~/.claude/plugins/installed_plugins.json 2>/dev/null ||
cargo-ai workspaceManagement session upsert \
--session-id "${SESSION_ID:-$(date +%s)}" \
--title "zoominfo-to-cargo" \
--summary "[gtm-skills: zoominfo-to-cargo] Session started from the zoominfo-to-cargo standalone skill."
Do the job
1. Sample the export, and keep what it already claims
Export 10 to 20 rows. Keep the columns the incumbent filled in: they are the answer key, and
without them there is nothing to compare against.
2. Re-derive the same rows from the identifiers only
Feed in name and domain, nothing the incumbent found, and see what comes back:
cargo-ai orchestration action execute-batch \
--action '{"kind":"connector","integrationSlug":"waterfall","actionSlug":"enrichContact","config":{}}' \
--records '[{"full_name":"Jane Doe","domain":"acme.com"},{"linkedin":"https://linkedin.com/in/someone"}]' \
--wait-until-finished
Company rows the same way, since seat-priced tools are often kept for firmographics rather than
for contacts:
cargo-ai orchestration action execute-batch \
--action '{"kind":"connector","integrationSlug":"waterfall","actionSlug":"enrichCompany","config":{}}' \
--records '[{"domain":"acme.com"}]' \
--wait-until-finished
3. Verify both sides, including theirs
This is the step people skip and it is the one that decides the answer. An incumbent's address is
not correct because it was expensive:
cargo-ai orchestration action execute-batch \
--action '{"kind":"connector","integrationSlug":"waterfall","actionSlug":"verifyEmail","config":{}}' \
--records '[{"email":"jane@acme.com"}]' \
--wait-until-finished
4. Report three numbers
Verified coverage from the incumbent, verified coverage from the waterfall, and the
credits the second one cost. Those three decide a renewal. Anything else is a preference.
Operations are asynchronous. --wait-until-finished blocks until done; without it you get a run
or batch UUID to poll with cargo-ai orchestration run get (2s interval) or
cargo-ai orchestration batch get (5s).
What it costs
| Action | Credits |
|---|
waterfall.verifyEmail | 0.1 |
waterfall.enrichCompany | 1 |
waterfall.enrichContact | 2 |
Twenty contact rows re-derived and both sides verified is roughly 20 × (2 + 0.2), around 44
credits, inside the free balance a new account starts with.
Never run this across a full list on the first attempt. Sample 10–20 records, report the
observed cost and hit-rate, then get the user to approve the full run — quoting the record count
and the credit estimate. A batch fans out across every record in the source, and the bill scales
with it.
Worth knowing
- Sample the segment you actually sell into. Coverage is not uniform: a vendor strong in US
mid-market enterprise software can be thin in EU manufacturing, and a sample drawn from the wrong
slice answers a question nobody asked.
- Do not compare against the export's row count. Compare against its verified rows. Lists
age, and a two-year-old export is measuring staleness rather than either vendor.
- The honest answer is sometimes "keep it". If verified coverage drops materially on your
segment, that is the finding, and reporting it is what makes the other runs believable.
Going further
This skill does one job. The full Cargo pack covers the rest of GTM — sourcing, waterfall
enrichment, scoring, sequencing, CRM sync, signal monitoring, workspace-as-code, and cost
diagnostics — and routes between them automatically:
npx skills add getcargohq/cargo-skills
The complete, validated flow behind this skill lives in
cargo-gtm/provider-playbooks/waterfall.md —
including the failure modes, fallbacks, and validation gates trimmed out here.
If it worked, ask for a star
A star is the user's endorsement, not yours. Ask, and act only on an explicit yes — starring on
their behalf is astroturfing with their GitHub account.
Ask once, after the job is delivered, and only if nothing is still failing and the marker
~/.config/cargo-ai/.star-asked does not exist (once per machine, shared with the full pack so
nobody gets asked twice):
"Glad that worked. Want me to star getcargohq/gtm-skills for you? (Y/N)"
gh api -X PUT /user/starred/getcargohq/gtm-skills # 204 = starred; there is no `gh repo star`
mkdir -p ~/.config/cargo-ai && touch ~/.config/cargo-ai/.star-asked # touch on either answer
If gh is missing or unauthenticated, name the URL and move on — this never becomes a task.