sourcing-outreach
When the user needs to write recruiting outreach messages to attract passive candidates or request referrals.
73
67%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/sourcing-outreach/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
57%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description establishes a clear niche in recruiting outreach but is structured only as a 'when' clause without explicitly stating what the skill does (e.g., 'Drafts personalized recruiting outreach messages...'). It would benefit from more specific actions and additional trigger terms that users commonly use when requesting help with recruiting communications.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'what' clause describing concrete actions, e.g., 'Drafts and personalizes recruiting outreach emails to attract passive candidates and request referrals.'
Expand trigger terms to include common variations like 'cold email', 'sourcing message', 'InMail', 'talent outreach', 'hiring email', or 'recruitment message'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain (recruiting outreach) and mentions two actions (attract passive candidates, request referrals), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like drafting emails, personalizing messages, or crafting subject lines. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The description answers 'when' clearly ('When the user needs to write recruiting outreach messages...') but the 'what' is weak — it doesn't explicitly describe what the skill does (e.g., generates, drafts, personalizes messages). The 'what' is only implied through the 'when' clause. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'recruiting outreach messages', 'passive candidates', and 'referrals', but misses common variations users might say such as 'cold email', 'sourcing', 'InMail', 'talent acquisition', 'hiring outreach', or 'recruitment email'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description targets a clear niche — recruiting outreach for passive candidates and referrals — which is distinct enough to avoid conflicts with general writing, email, or HR skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, actionable skill with excellent examples and a clear workflow. Its main weakness is length — the channel-specific guidelines, anti-patterns, and personalization checklist could be split into referenced files to improve token efficiency. The PRC framework and concrete examples are standout strengths that make this immediately usable.
Suggestions
Move channel-specific guidelines, anti-patterns, and the personalization checklist into separate referenced files (e.g., CHANNELS.md, ANTI-PATTERNS.md) to reduce the main skill's token footprint.
Trim advice that Claude already knows (e.g., 'plain text outperforms HTML', 'no logos, no signatures with 10 links') to improve conciseness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly well-written but includes some content Claude would already know (e.g., general advice like 'plain text outperforms HTML templates', 'send from a real person's email'). The anti-patterns section, while useful, adds length that could be trimmed. Overall mostly efficient but could be tightened by ~20-30%. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly concrete, copy-paste-ready examples for both LinkedIn InMail and referral requests. The PRC framework is specific and actionable, channel-specific guidelines include concrete constraints (300 chars, 150 words), and the follow-up sequence has specific timing and content guidance. The examples are realistic and ready to adapt. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step workflow is clearly sequenced from research through review. Step 6 includes a validation checkpoint ('ensure the message sounds human, not templated; check that personalization is specific enough'). The follow-up sequence design provides explicit timing and a clear stopping rule (never more than 3 follow-ups). For a non-destructive writing task, this level of workflow clarity is excellent. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear headers and sections, and references related skills (job-description, interview-kit). However, the skill is quite long (~180 lines) and could benefit from splitting detailed channel guidelines, the personalization checklist, and anti-patterns into separate reference files. Everything is inline in a single document. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- shawnpang/startup-founder-skills
- Commit
4ad31b4
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.