git:20260814.2bae4d7 to git:20260826.bc39551

30 added, 7 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: follow-up-email-drafter

description: Drafts the customer-facing follow-up email a rep sends after a sales call, grounding every recap, next step, and date in what was actually said, plus a separate grounding-notes section flagging which lines are heard-verbatim versus a proposal the rep should confirm before sending. Use right after a call when a rep wants a first-draft follow-up instead of writing one from scratch, or when a manager wants to sanity-check a drafted email against the transcript before it goes out.

license: MIT

metadata:

zime:category: deal-intelligence

zime:dimension: intelligence

zime:input-modes: transcript

---

# Follow-Up Email Drafter

- Drafts the actual follow-up email a rep sends after a call — subject line

- and body, ready to send. This is a different shape from most skills in

- this repo: the output itself is customer-facing text, not an internal

- audit, digest, or plan. That makes the grounding rule below the most

- important thing here — a drafted email that promises something the call

- never established is worse than no draft at all, because the prospect

- reads it as a commitment.

+ You are a deal-intelligence writer. Draft the actual follow-up email a rep

+ sends after a call — subject line and body, ready to send. This is a

+ different shape from most skills in this repo: the output itself is

+ customer-facing text, not an internal audit, digest, or plan. That makes

+ the grounding rule below the most important thing here — a drafted email

+ that promises something the call never established is worse than no draft

+ at all, because the prospect reads it as a commitment.

+ ## Before you start

+ - Run this end to end without stopping to ask which claims to include —

+ apply the `heard`/`inferred` test to every line and phrase accordingly.

+ - If the call ended with nothing concrete, don't ask whether to draft

+ anyway — send the minimal recap email described below.

Lighter-weight than `mutual-action-plan`: that skill builds a full

milestone-by-milestone plan to signature with owners on both sides; this

skill writes the one email a rep sends right after a call. Use

`mutual-action-plan` when the ask is a multi-step plan; use this when the

ask is just the next email.

## When to use this

- A rep just got off a call and wants a first-draft follow-up email

instead of writing one from scratch or copy-pasting notes.

- A manager or rep wants to sanity-check a drafted email against the

transcript before it goes out, catching an over-promised line.

- The call ended without a clear next step and the rep still needs to

send something — a minimal, honest recap beats a padded one.

## The grounding rule

Before drafting each line, run `mutual-action-plan`'s internal check: is

this claim `heard` (actually said on the call — quote it) or `inferred`

(a reasonable next step, but not stated with a date, owner, or as an

agreed fact)? See `references/rubric.md` for the full test.

- A **`heard`** claim goes in the email stated plainly, as a fact or an

agreed next step.

- An **`inferred`** claim either gets phrased as a proposal the rep is

putting forward ("I'd suggest we...", "Would it help if...") rather

than a recap of what was agreed, or gets left out of the email

entirely if it's too thin to even propose.

- The `heard`/`inferred` tags themselves never appear in the email — that

distinction is internal reasoning. The email reads like a normal email

a rep would send, not an annotated transcript.

Never invent a next step, number, date, or name that the call didn't at

least gesture toward.

## Transcript mode (`.txt`, `.vtt`, `.json`, `.md`)

```

claude "run follow-up-email-drafter on ./calls/call.txt"

```

Read the transcript, then output two parts:

1. **The drafted email** — subject line + body. Professional, not

robotic. Recaps what was discussed; confirms next steps only if they

were actually agreed. Proposed (not-yet-agreed) items are phrased as

suggestions, not recaps.

2. **Grounding notes** (below the email, not part of it) — one line per

concrete claim in the draft:

- `Heard` — the quote from the transcript it traces to.

- `Proposed` — flagged as something the rep should confirm is actually

wanted before sending, since the call didn't lock it down.

If the call ended with nothing concrete to follow up on, say so directly

and draft a minimal "great talking with you, here's a quick recap" email

instead of padding it with invented asks.

## Sample data

`assets/sample-transcript.txt` is a synthetic call with a deliberately

mixed set of moments — one clearly-agreed next step, one vaguer moment a

shallow drafter would over-promise on. Run the skill against it first.

+ ## Do not

+ - Don't state a `Proposed` (inferred) item as an agreed fact in the email

+ body — it goes in as a suggestion or gets left out.

+ - Don't let the `Heard`/`Proposed` tags leak into the email itself — that

+ distinction belongs only in the grounding notes.

+ - Don't invent a next step, number, date, or name the call didn't at least

+ gesture toward.

+ ## Related skills

+ - `mutual-action-plan` builds the full milestone-by-milestone plan to

+ signature; use this skill instead when the ask is just the next email.

+ - `deal-highlights` writes the internal manager-facing digest; this skill

+ writes the customer-facing email.

## What this does not do

No CRM connection, no API calls, no telemetry, no data retention beyond

the current session. It reads the file(s) you point it at and nothing

else. It never invents a next step the call didn't at least gesture

toward, and never fabricates a specific number, date, or name not present

in the transcript.