Basho Outreach

Basho-style outreach

Build: basho-outreach · 2026-08-05 · canon-optional-rebuild

One hand-crafted first-touch email to one specific person. It trades volume for hit rate: the recipient can tell from the first sentence that it was written to them and not to a list.

It is not a sequence, a follow-up, or a nudge. If that is what is wanted, say so and stop — basho is the wrong tool for it.

Two layers — the framework, and the operator

This skill runs standalone or inside someone's own repo, so it is explicit about which half is which:

• The framework is here. The four parts, the length band, the one-CTA rule, the research gate, the failure modes. These are properties of the method, they are the same for every sender, and the skill must work with nothing but this file.
• The operator is not here. Who is sending, what they are allowed to claim, whose names may appear, house voice rules — never hard-code any of it into this file. It is read at run time from the operator profile below. A skill that remembers an employer, a client name or a metric will still be repeating it a year after it stopped being true, in a first email, to someone who can check.

Load the operator profile — before drafting a word

In this order, and stop at the first that exists:

1. The repo's own canon. If this skill is installed inside a repo that defines the operator in its own files, read those. Repos that do this usually route them from a CLAUDE.md or equivalent at the root — read that routing and follow it rather than guessing filenames. Typical routing: who the operator is, what figures and claims are cleared, what is barred, and the voice files anything human-facing is written from.
2. CONFIG.md at the skill or repo root.
3. Neither exists → interview the user. Ask for the fields below and draft nothing until they are answered.

Precedence: repo canon beats CONFIG beats anything remembered. If this skill appears to disagree with the operator's canon, canon wins and the skill is stale — say so in the output.

What the profile has to supply: the sender's name, role and firm · what the firm does, in the sender's own words · who they typically write to · the proof points and figures they may cite, and any that are barred · which names — clients, employers, references — may appear, and which may not · voice preferences, including spelling convention and words to avoid · any house rules.

Failure mode — stop, don't improvise. If the profile cannot be read and the user cannot be asked, stop and say so. Never draft a credibility paragraph from memory or inference. A first email is the one artefact where being wrong is unrecoverable: it goes to a named stranger who can check, over the sender's name, and it cannot be retracted. No profile, no draft.

Naming names — the rule the credibility paragraph turns on

Default to anonymising other people's business. A client, customer or engagement is described by shape — a Series-B payments company, a Tier-1 bank's market-data function — not by name.

The sender's own employers, roles and record are the carve-out: those are their positioning proof and they are nameable, subject to whatever the profile clears.

A third party's name goes in only where the profile explicitly says it may. Silence is not permission — if the profile does not clear a name, it is not cleared. Say so, and use the shape instead. Where the profile bars a figure or a claim, it is barred here too; this skill never carries its own list of what is safe to say.

The research gate — non-negotiable

Before drafting, you need: the recipient's first name, firm and role; one specific, verifiable thing they have done, said, published or run; the sender's relevance angle — why this sender, to this person, now; and a concrete slot for the ask, with day, time and timezone.

If any of these is missing, ask. Do not invent specifics and do not guess at the recipient's focus. Filler is the failure mode: the user would rather answer three questions than receive a draft with [specific post about X] in it.

If the user says "just draft something", hold the line: if a variable cannot be filled, the recipient is not ready to be contacted yet.

The four parts

Subject. Mirror something the recipient has publicly said or done. Not a pitch, not a teaser. If nothing specific enough exists for the subject line, that is the research gate failing, not a licence to generalise.

Paragraph 1 — the hook. One specific, verifiable thing, named precisely. A post, a placement, a panel, a deal, a number they quoted. Never your impressive work or your thought leadership. The test: if it could be true of anyone else in their role, it is not specific enough.

Paragraph 2 — credibility and why-now. Two jobs. Establish that the sender is worth the recipient's time — role, the kind of firm they serve, and proof cleared by the profile, named within the rules above. Then say why now, with a real reason rather than I'd love to connect.

Paragraph 3 — the ask. One CTA, low commitment, with a specific slot proposed. Twenty minutes Thursday at 3pm, or would early next week suit? beats let me know when works. A second ask halves the first one — if there are two, cut one.

Close with the sender's first name. No signature block, no disclaimer, no postscript.

Length: roughly 120–160 words. Longer means padding; much shorter means the credibility work was skipped. This is a framework parameter, not an operator preference — but if the profile sets its own, the profile wins.

Variants — same structure, different content

• Recruiter. The goal is to open a long-term relationship, not to chase a role. The hook is their placements or their read of the market; the why-now is worth being explicit about — keeping a small group of trusted recruiters close, whether or not the sender is actively looking. Never ask about a specific vacancy in a first email.
• Prospect. A decision-maker at a target firm. The hook must be about their firm's situation — a regulatory change, a named peer they would recognise, an earnings-call remark, a hiring pattern, an acquisition. Their firm's public signals, not the sender's product.
• Partner or ecosystem. Vendors, consultants, analysts, adjacent operators. The hook is usually a shared audience or a shared problem, and the ask is a conversation between peers, not a pitch. Being useful before being interesting is the whole play.

Voice — framework defaults, overridden by the profile

Where the operator profile sets a rule, it wins. Absent one:

• No buzzwords. Not: synergy, leverage, best-in-class, impactful, circle back, move the needle, unlock value, drive growth, game-changing, revolutionary.
• No opener pleasantries. I hope this finds you well is an instant delete. Open on the hook.
• Short sentences, with one or two longer ones for rhythm. No hedge-stacks.
• Measured and honest. No superlatives and no unverifiable claims — a first email is the worst possible place to be caught overstating.
• First person and direct. I run…, I've spent…, I'd value twenty minutes — not we at [firm] would love to…
• Numbers as digits.

Output format

**Subject:** <subject line>

<paragraph 1 — hook>

<paragraph 2 — credibility + why-now>

<paragraph 3 — one ask, with a specific slot>

Best,
<sender's first name>

Then two blocks beneath it, always:

• Variables used — the specific inputs drawn on: the named post or placement, the proof points cited and where the profile cleared them, the slot proposed. This is what lets the sender check the research before sending.
• Assumptions to verify — anything inferred, however small. Better surfaced than buried. If there are none, say so rather than dropping the block.

Draft only. This skill does not send, schedule or queue anything. Where the operator's canon gates outbound messages to a person, that gate applies here: show the exact text and wait.

What good looks like

• Reading paragraph 1, the recipient thinks this person actually knows what I do.
• Paragraph 2 makes the twenty-minute case without puffery.
• Paragraph 3 can be answered with two words.
• Nothing in the email could be pasted into an email to anyone else in the same role. That is the whole test; if it fails, the draft is not finished.

Failure modes seen in the wild

• A compliment not tied to a specific artefact — I've been really impressed by your work.
• Vague credibility — we work with many top-tier firms — where a shape or a cleared name belongs.
• Asking for a call when it suits instead of proposing a slot.
• More than one ask.
• Drafting before the research is done. When in doubt, ask one more question.
• Reaching for a name, a figure or a claim the profile has not cleared. Use the shape, and say which check it failed.

Rebuilt 5 Aug 2026 to NEW-SKILL-STANDARD.md as a canon-optional build: one file that ships byte-identical standalone and inside an operator's own repo, because two builds of the same method is the drift this rebuild exists to remove. The prior build read a CONFIG.md that existed in no copy of the repo, and told the reader to open three assets/*-template.md files that were never packaged — so both of its dependencies were dangling and its only fallback was to improvise. The variants are folded into this file for that reason. This file greps clean for values: the only digits are the length band and the twenty-minute example, both framework parameters, both overridable by the profile.