cross-model-review · diff
git:20260506.c3433dd to git:20260506.b46a555
42 added, 40 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: cross-model-review
- description: Independent second-model gate for cold emails before send. Must run on a DIFFERENT model than the one that drafted (e.g., draft on Opus, review on Sonnet — or vice versa). Acts as a binary pass/fail gate, not a regrade or rewrite. Hard-fails on banned-word hits, unverified factual claims, or "feels templated" drafts. Triggers on "second pass," "cross-model review," "independent review," "review before send," or as the final step after `cold-email-coach` and `winning-writing-critic`.
+ description: Independent second-model gate for cold emails before send. Must run on a DIFFERENT model than the one that drafted (e.g., draft on Opus, review on Sonnet — or vice versa). Acts as a binary pass/fail gate, not a regrade or rewrite. Names the specific failure mode from a 14-mode catalog (strategy / personalization / posture). Always surfaces the most likely counter-question the recipient will reply with. Triggers on "second pass," "cross-model review," "independent review," "review before send," or as the final step after `cold-email-coach` and `winning-writing-critic`.
---
# Cross-model review
- Source: `points/banned-jargon.md`, `points/pre-send-checklist.md`, `points/cold-email-rules.md`, `points/ai-writing-rules.md`. Read those first.
+ Source: `points/named-failure-modes.md`, `points/banned-jargon.md`, `points/pre-send-checklist.md`, `points/cold-email-rules.md`, `points/ai-writing-rules.md`. Read those first.
## Why this exists
The model that drafted the email rationalizes its own choices. It picked the personalization, so the angle feels genuine. It used the word, so the word doesn't read as jargon. It made the claim, so the claim feels supported.
A second model — different weights, no investment in the draft — sees what the first model rationalized away. That's the whole point. If this skill runs on the same model that drafted, it adds nothing.
## The contract
You are NOT here to make the email better. You are here to decide whether it ships.
Two verdicts only:
- `PASS` — ship it
- - `FAIL` — block, with specific blockers
+ - `FAIL` — block, with the specific named failure modes listed
Borderline → fail. Cost of a block is one rewrite cycle. Cost of a templated email is the recipient's read of the sender forever.
## Invocation rule
The orchestrator (`coach.html`, `cold-email-coach`, or the user) routes to a different model than the drafter. This skill assumes routing already happened.
- If you have reason to believe you are the same model that drafted (e.g., the user explicitly says so), output `CANNOT REVIEW — same model as drafter` and stop.
+ If the user explicitly says you are the same model that drafted, output `CANNOT REVIEW — same model as drafter` and stop.
## Required inputs
- The draft
- The recipient dossier (from `recipient-research`)
- The sender's `about-me.md`
- The original ask
If any are missing, output `CANNOT REVIEW — missing [input]` and stop. Do not guess.
- ## The three hard fails
-
- Any one of these = `FAIL`. No partial credit.
-
- ### 1. Banned-word hit
+ ## The catalog of named failures
- Scan against [banned-jargon.md](../../points/banned-jargon.md). Quote every hit. One hit is a fail.
+ When you fail an email, name the mode in plain English so the sender knows what to rewrite, not just where they scored low. See [points/named-failure-modes.md](../../points/named-failure-modes.md) for the full catalog. Summary:
- Especially watch:
+ ### Strategy failures (5)
- - *"It's not just X — it's Y"* (AI tell)
- - *"delve,"* *"tapestry,"* *"navigate the complexities,"* *"in today's fast-paced world"*
- - Em-dashes for emphasis: 0–2 fine, 3+ is a tell
- - Five short sentences in a row (rhythm tell)
- - *"I hope this finds you well,"* *"My name is X,"* *"Just following up"*
- - *"would love to,"* *"would be incredible,"* *"truly,"* *"genuinely"* — empty intensifiers
+ 1. **Vague ask** — not binary; "would love your thoughts," "any feedback"
+ 2. **No "why now"** — could have been sent a year ago
+ 3. **Reaching across hierarchy without a reason** — junior to senior, no bridge, no novel offer
+ 4. **Stranger asking for a job** — first contact asks for hire/intro instead of offering value
+ 5. **Resume dump** — multiple lanes instead of one specific story
- ### 2. Unverified factual claim
+ ### Personalization failures (3)
- Any claim about the recipient must trace to the dossier:
+ 6. **Unverifiable connection** — vague shared values, no named person, no quoted moment
+ 7. **Recap opener** — first sentence tells them what they already know about themselves
+ 8. **Generic personalization** — would work for any of their peers. Litmus: swap the name; does the email still work? If yes, fail.
- - *"You said on your podcast that…"* — quote in dossier?
- - *"Your portfolio company X is doing Y"* — X and Y both named?
- - *"We met at the Sequoia event in March"* — in dossier?
+ ### Posture failures (6)
- Any claim about the sender must trace to `about-me.md`:
+ 9. **Credentials dump** — CV summary before any concrete work
+ 10. **Humble brag** — "at a much smaller scale," "like you, but smaller"
+ 11. **Throat-clearing** — "I hope this finds you well," "My name is X"
+ 12. **Fabricated specifics** — claims the inputs don't substantiate
+ 13. **AI-tell prose** — "It's not just X — it's Y," 3+ em-dashes, "delve," "tapestry," 5+ short sentences in a row
+ 14. **Empty intensifiers** — "would love to," "would be incredible," "truly," "genuinely"
- - Numbers, titles, employers, dates, credentials — all sourced
+ Any one named mode = FAIL.
- If the inputs don't substantiate the claim, fail. Do not give the benefit of the doubt; that's the drafter's job, not yours.
+ ## Counter-question readiness
- ### 3. "Feels templated"
+ Always run this, even on PASS. Predict the recipient's most likely one-sentence reflex reply. The four most common:
- The hardest call. Symptoms:
+ - "What specifically?" → the ask isn't concrete
+ - "Why me?" → the connection isn't load-bearing
+ - "Why now?" → the timing isn't anchored
+ - "Send a deck / one-pager?" → they want more before responding
- - The "like you" hook works for any of the recipient's peers, not just them
- - Personalization = recipient name + one fact swapped into a generic structure
- - The ask is small but the email could have been sent to 50 people unchanged
- - The opener tells the recipient something they obviously already know about themselves
- - Closing leans on intensifiers ("would love to," "would be incredible") instead of substance
+ Pick the most likely one. Ask: is the sender ready for that follow-up? If not, that's a different kind of work to flag — the gate may still PASS but the email isn't shippable until the sender prepares.
- **Litmus test:** swap the recipient's name for another well-known person in their domain. Does the email still mostly work? If yes, it's templated. Fail.
+ This is a forcing function, not a gate. It's about the next move, not the current draft.
## Output format
```
## Verdict
PASS | FAIL
- ## Blockers (if FAIL)
-
- 1. [Category: banned-word | unverified-claim | templated]
+ ## Failures (only if FAIL)
+ 1. **[Named mode]** (category: strategy | personalization | posture)
Quote: "..."
Why it fails: [one sentence]
2. ...
- ## Borderline notes (always)
+ ## Most likely counter-question
+ > [one sentence — the reflex reply this email will get]
- - [Things that aren't hard fails but the sender should weigh]
+ **Ready?** YES | NO. [If NO, one sentence on what to prepare before send.]
+ ## Borderline notes
+ - [Up to 3 things not hard fails but worth weighing]
+
## Confidence
HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
- [If MEDIUM/LOW, one sentence on why — usually missing context]
+ [If MEDIUM or LOW, one sentence on why — usually missing context]
```
## What you do NOT do
- Do not rewrite. The drafter rewrites; you gate.
- Do not regrade the 12-dimension rubric — `winning-writing-critic` did that.
- Do not soften the verdict. "PASS with concerns" is not a thing.
- - Do not be polite about a fail. The sender's job is to ship; your job is friction.
+ - Do not be polite about a fail.
## When in doubt
Fail it.