CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

jbaruch/frequent-flyer-advocate

Write professional, persuasive complaint letters to US airlines emphasizing loyalty status, DOT regulations, and airline commitments.

93

1.38x
Quality

94%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

93%

1.38x

Average score across 10 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Evaluation results

100%

50%

Complaint Letter: Extended Maintenance Delay

Letter structure & policy quotes

Criteria
Without context
With context

Subject line: flight details

100%

100%

Subject line: loyalty tier

0%

100%

Opening leads with loyalty

0%

100%

Incident narrative specificity

100%

100%

Airline quote present

100%

100%

Quote vs. reality contrast

100%

100%

Specific regulatory citation

0%

100%

Response deadline specified

0%

100%

Compensation matches major disruption

100%

100%

Closing: DOT mention without threat

0%

100%

91%

22%

Flight Verification: Conflicting Details and Disambiguation

Criteria
Without context
With context

FlightAware lookup attempted

100%

100%

Flight number ambiguity noted

100%

100%

Route verification attempted

100%

100%

Delay duration cross-checked

70%

100%

Weather claim verification

40%

70%

Discrepancies flagged to user

100%

100%

Verified timestamps in letter

13%

60%

Independent verification attribution

20%

100%

No fabricated flight data

80%

100%

90%

1%

Airline Complaint Intake and Case Strategy

Criteria
Without context
With context

Flight details requested

100%

100%

Delay specifics requested

100%

100%

Consequential damages asked

100%

100%

Loyalty tier asked

100%

100%

Documentation asked

100%

100%

Severity amplifiers identified

100%

33%

Desired outcome asked

0%

100%

Prior contact asked

100%

100%

Questions organized in categories

100%

100%

Essential questions first

60%

60%

Case strength factors named

100%

100%

100%

31%

Cross-Border Travel Woes

Criteria
Without context
With context

Air Canada jurisdiction

0%

100%

No DOT complaint for Air Canada

0%

100%

Alternative guidance for Air Canada

100%

100%

Spirit weak case honesty

50%

100%

Spirit reasoning specific

100%

100%

SSN not included

100%

100%

Privacy guidance given

100%

100%

Appropriate identifiers named

100%

100%

100%

41%

Airline Complaint Triage and Escalation Planning

Criteria
Without context
With context

Weak case honesty

100%

100%

Statutory denied boarding compensation

50%

100%

Status-scaled compensation

55%

100%

Out-of-pocket expense reimbursement

100%

100%

DOT complaint: immediate filing

0%

100%

Executive contact as primary

22%

100%

DOT complaint channel cited

100%

100%

Compensation logging guidance

0%

100%

Timeline expectations provided

60%

100%

No outcome promises

100%

100%

No lawsuit threats

100%

100%

100%

25%

Stalled Complaint — No Response After Weeks

Criteria
Without context
With context

DOT complaint recommended

100%

100%

DOT filing channel specified

85%

100%

Executive contacts as primary

80%

100%

Resend letter to executive relations

75%

100%

Social media tactics included

100%

100%

Social media channels named

100%

100%

No lawsuit threat advised

0%

100%

No outcome promised

90%

100%

Cancellation short-notice DOT basis

100%

100%

Compensation logging guidance

0%

100%

Timeline expectations set

87%

100%

96%

48%

Complaint Filing After Letter Completion

Criteria
Without context
With context

Complaint filed to bank

80%

100%

Correct airline and flight

50%

100%

Correct category

50%

100%

Correct severity

0%

100%

Route and date present

71%

100%

Summary is concise

0%

100%

Outcome recorded

100%

100%

DOT immediate filing recommended

25%

100%

Follow-up prompt included

90%

100%

Credits logging mentioned for future

25%

100%

Resolve command shown for future

0%

42%

90%

18%

Complaint History Pattern Detection

Criteria
Without context
With context

Prior DFW-MIA cancellation referenced

100%

100%

Prior DENIED resolution cited

100%

100%

DFW-ORD delay NOT forced into narrative

26%

100%

Pattern stated matter-of-fact

75%

100%

Pattern in opening or airline-vs-reality section

50%

60%

Loyalty opening present

100%

100%

Compensation calibrated to pattern

80%

100%

Complaint bank consulted

30%

40%

85%

-14%

Pending Complaint Follow-Up

Criteria
Without context
With context

Pending complaints checked first

100%

100%

DL891 resolved as PARTIAL

100%

100%

DL891 credits logged

100%

53%

DL2044 resolved as CLOSED

100%

100%

DL2044 no credits logged

100%

100%

DOT escalation suggested for DL2044

100%

20%

New complaint intake proceeds

100%

100%

Voucher expiry captured

100%

100%

Resolve commands shown

90%

100%

84%

43%

Airline Policy Research: Denied Boarding Complaint

Criteria
Without context
With context

Playwright availability assessed and acted on

0%

38%

Credits inventory consulted

0%

100%

Customer Service Plan researched

60%

80%

Contract of Carriage researched

100%

90%

Mission/vision/CEO statements researched

0%

100%

DOT passenger rights researched

100%

90%

FAA Reauthorization Act researched

0%

100%

Executive contacts researched

0%

100%

DOT enforcement actions researched

0%

100%

Letter quotes a named source

100%

100%

Evaluated
Agent
Claude Code
Model
Claude Sonnet 4.6

Table of Contents