---
name: 01-signal-scan
description: Run when I paste accounts or people and need the reason to reach out now. Trigger - "run 01" plus the list and whatever I have on them.
---

# TASK 01 — SIGNAL SCAN

## INPUT
Names, titles, companies. Plus whatever I pasted: posts,
hiring pages, funding notes, comments, podcast quotes.

## PROCESS
1. For each one, find the most recent dated thing they said or
   did that I actually gave you. Not company news — something
   attributable to the person where possible.
2. Turn it into a consequence: what usually breaks next for
   someone in that position. This is the part that earns the
   reply, not the observation itself.
3. Rank by how specific the signal is. A vague signal is worse
   than no signal, because it produces a generic message.

## OUTPUT — one block per person
NAME / THE SIGNAL (what, when, where I saw it) /
THE CONSEQUENCE (one line) / OPENING QUESTION (one line).

## RULES
- Every signal carries a date. No date, no signal.
- Never infer a signal from the company alone. "They raised a
  Series B" is not a reason to write to a person.
- If I gave you nothing on someone, say so and skip them. Do
  not fill the slot.

## EDGE CASES
- The only signal is a job change: that is legitimate but
  crowded. Say so, and build the angle on what they inherited
  rather than congratulating them.
- Nothing usable across the whole list: tell me the list is
  the problem and name the two things to go find first.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"SIGNAL: posted Aug 12 about moving from 6 reps to 14.
CONSEQUENCE: process visibility breaks around 14.
QUESTION: is that showing up yet, or still ahead of it?"

---
name: 02-message-rewrite
description: Run when I paste a rep's outbound message and it needs to work. Trigger - "run 02" plus the message and anything known about the target.
---

# TASK 02 — MESSAGE REWRITE

## INPUT
The message as written. Ideally the target's role and any
signal. Say if it is a first touch or a follow-up.

## PROCESS
1. Name what is broken, in plain terms, before rewriting. Be
   specific: no signal, unsourced claim, ask about our
   calendar, too long, could have gone to anyone.
2. Rewrite it against the output defaults.
3. Explain what changed and why, in three lines. The rep has
   to be able to do it themselves next time — that is the
   whole point of the exercise.

## OUTPUT
- WHAT'S BROKEN: two or three lines, direct, not unkind.
- REWRITE: the message.
- WHAT CHANGED AND WHY: three lines maximum.

## RULES
- 60 words or fewer. No meeting request in a first touch.
- No statistic survives unless I gave you its source.
- Never write a compliment opener. "Loved your post" is not a
  signal, it is a throat-clear.
- Do not soften the diagnosis to be nice. Reps improve on
  specifics, not encouragement.

## EDGE CASES
- The message is fine: say so and change nothing. Cutting a
  working message to look useful is the worst outcome here.
- There is no signal available at all: do not invent an angle.
  Say the message cannot be written yet and name the one thing
  to go find.
- Follow-up rather than first touch: the ask can be firmer,
  but it still lands on their situation, not our pipeline.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"WHAT'S BROKEN: the 40% has no source, and the ask is about
your calendar. Nothing here couldn't have gone to 400 people."

---
name: 03-post-from-a-call
description: Run when something in a live session is worth writing about. Trigger - "run 03" plus what happened.
---

# TASK 03 — POST FROM A CALL

## INPUT
What happened: the moment, what the rep or leader said, what
changed. Tell me if any detail is identifying.

## PROCESS
1. Strip anything that identifies the client. Company, sector
   if narrow, deal size, anything a colleague would recognise.
   If the moment does not survive that, say so and stop.
2. Find the one idea. Not three. The post is the idea plus the
   thing that happened, nothing else.
3. Write it the way I talk. Short lines. The specific detail
   stays because the specific detail is the whole post.

## OUTPUT
A post of 60-140 words. No hook formula, no "here's what I
learned", no numbered list unless it genuinely is one. Last
line is a statement or a real question, never a CTA.

## RULES
- Never name or hint at a client without me saying I have
  permission.
- No invented numbers. If the result was good but I did not
  give you a figure, describe it without one.
- One idea. If I gave you three, pick the sharpest and tell me
  which two you parked.

## EDGE CASES
- The moment is really about a person failing: write it so the
  rep would be fine reading it. No exceptions.
- It only works with the client named: say so, and tell me to
  go get permission rather than writing a vague version.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"A rep asked me today why nobody replies to his follow-ups.
His follow-up said 'just bumping this.' That's not a
follow-up, that's a receipt."

---
name: 04-intake-call-prep
description: Run before a first call with a prospective client. Trigger - "run 04" plus who they are and whatever I have.
---

# TASK 04 — INTAKE CALL PREP

## INPUT
Who, their role, their company, team size if known, how they
came in, anything they have said publicly.

## PROCESS
1. Build the ten-minute diagnosis: the five questions that
   reveal whether their outbound problem is skill, system,
   signal or leadership. Order them so the answers compound.
2. Build the ten-minute context: what I need them to
   understand about how the work runs, in three points, no
   pitch language.
3. Build the fit test: the two things that would make this a
   no from my side, phrased as questions I can actually ask.
4. Draft the first thirty days in four lines, assuming fit.

## OUTPUT — one page
DIAGNOSIS (5 questions) / CONTEXT (3 points) /
FIT TEST (2 questions) / FIRST 30 DAYS (4 lines).

## RULES
- No deck, no slides, no pitch script. Ever.
- Questions must be answerable with information, not yes or
  no. "Do you have a process?" is a wasted minute.
- The first thirty days is a plan, not a proposal. No pricing.

## EDGE CASES
- I gave you almost nothing: write the diagnosis anyway, mark
  the context and fit sections [AFTER THE CALL].
- They arrived through a referral: the fit test still runs.
  Referrals fail the assets-not-headcount test as often as
  cold inbound does.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"Q3: When a rep books a good meeting, can you tell me what
they did differently — or does it just show up in the number?"

---
name: 05-fit-and-walk
description: Run when a prospect is not a fit and I want to say so cleanly. Trigger - "run 05" plus what happened on the call.
---

# TASK 05 — FIT AND WALK

## INPUT
What they said, what I heard, and which way I am leaning.

## PROCESS
1. Name the reason honestly, to me first. Usually one of:
   they treat reps as cost, they want volume not system, they
   want a trainer not a partner, or the timing is genuinely
   wrong.
2. Separate the reasons. "Not now" and "not us" get different
   emails, and conflating them wastes a future deal.
3. Give the fixes away. Two or three specific things they can
   do without me. This is the part I said I would do, so the
   email is worthless without it.

## OUTPUT
- One line to me: which reason, and whether the door stays
  open.
- The email: 120 words, the decision in the first two lines,
  the fixes, then one line leaving it open if it should be.

## RULES
- Never dress a no as a maybe to keep the pipeline looking
  healthy.
- The fixes are real and specific. Generic advice reads as a
  brush-off and it is one.
- No pitch for a smaller offer inside a walk-away email.

## EDGE CASES
- Genuinely just timing: say so plainly and name the trigger
  that should bring them back, not a date.
- They treat reps as headcount: say the fit reason without
  lecturing them about it. One clause, then the fixes.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"Reason: wants volume, not a system. Door open if their reply
rate keeps falling. Fixes: kill the InMail spend, pick 40
accounts, one dated signal each before any message goes out."

---
name: 06-session-recap
description: Run after a workshop or coaching session, from my notes. Trigger - "run 06" plus the notes. Goes to the sponsor.
---

# TASK 06 — SESSION RECAP

## INPUT
My notes from the session. Who was in the room. Who the
sponsor is.

## PROCESS
1. Pull what the reps committed to, with names and dates.
   Commitments made out loud in the room, not ideas raised.
2. Pull what I owe them, same standard.
3. Name the one thing the sponsor needs to do, because there
   almost always is one and it is usually the blocker.
4. Flag anything I saw that the sponsor cannot see from their
   seat — quietly, factually, no names attached to problems.

## OUTPUT — one email, 180 words max
WHAT THE TEAM COMMITTED TO / WHAT I OWE / WHAT YOU OWE
(one line, dated) / WHAT I NOTICED (two lines, no names).

## RULES
- Never name a struggling rep to their leader in writing.
  Patterns, not people.
- Every commitment carries an owner and a date.
- If the session did not land, say it here rather than at
  renewal.

## EDGE CASES
- The blocker is the sponsor themselves: write it as a
  behaviour and a date, not as a judgement.
- Great session, nothing to flag: say so in one line. Do not
  manufacture a concern to look rigorous.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"WHAT YOU OWE: sign off the 40-account list by Fri Sep 12 —
the team can't build signals against a list that keeps moving."

---
name: 07-week-plan
description: Run Sunday night. Trigger - "run 07" plus calendar, live clients, open conversations, anything on fire. Reads on a phone.
---

# TASK 07 — WEEK PLAN

## INPUT
Calendar, live engagements, open sales conversations, content
commitments, anything on fire.

## PROCESS
1. Three OUTCOMES, one from each side of the business:
   delivery, pipeline, content. If one side has nothing, say
   which and why that is the risk.
2. What to decline or move, with the one-line script.
3. The thing I am avoiding. Derive it from what I pasted — the
   conversation with no next step, the client I have not
   called, the post I keep not writing.

## OUTPUT — half a page, phone-readable
THREE OUTCOMES (delivery / pipeline / content) /
DROP OR MOVE (item + script) / THE AVOIDED THING (one line).

## RULES
- Outcomes state what is TRUE on Friday, not what I will do.
- Delivery beats pipeline in a collision. I do not outsource
  delivery, so a slipped client session is not recoverable.
- Maximum three. Say what you parked.

## EDGE CASES
- Week is all delivery: the pipeline outcome becomes the one
  conversation to keep warm, not a prospecting sprint.
- Travel or speaking week: content outcome becomes reuse, not
  new production.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"AVOIDING: the client from three weeks ago whose reps stopped
posting. You haven't called. That's the renewal."

---
name: 08-thirty-day-one-pager
description: Run at day 30 of an engagement, for the sponsor. Trigger - "run 08" plus the numbers and what actually happened.
---

# TASK 08 — THIRTY DAY ONE-PAGER

## INPUT
What changed in the numbers, what the reps are doing
differently, what has not moved, and anything the sponsor
should hear from me before they hear it elsewhere.

## PROCESS
1. Line one is what changed, with the figure I gave you. If I
   gave you no figure, line one says what changed in behaviour
   and asks for the number. Never estimate it.
2. Two things working, named specifically enough that they
   could be repeated by someone who was not there.
3. One thing not working, with the honest reason.
4. The decision I need from them, with a date.

## OUTPUT — one page
WHAT CHANGED / WORKING (2) / NOT WORKING (1, honest) /
THE DECISION I NEED (1, dated).

## RULES
- No adjective a number could replace.
- "Not working" names a cause, never a rep.
- If the honest answer at day 30 is that adoption is thin, say
  that in line one. It is the only line that gets read and it
  is the only month where saying it still helps.

## EDGE CASES
- Numbers moved but for an unrelated reason: say so. Taking
  credit for a lucky month costs the renewal later.
- Sponsor has gone quiet: the decision I need becomes a
  standing meeting, and that is the whole one-pager.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"Meetings sourced by LinkedIn went from 0 to 9. NOT WORKING:
four reps still send the message before finding the signal —
the list moved twice, so they never got a stable set to work."