Jasper0122 Backlink outreach
Build editorially useful partnerships. A backlink is the result of a content collaboration that helps a reader, not a swap.
The one rule that must never break
research -> evaluate -> draft -> approve -> send
-> receive materials -> write -> review -> publish -> verify
No stage advances without the user saying so. In particular:
- "look at", "review", "draft a reply", "who should we contact" are read-only or draft-only. They never authorise a send.
- A finished draft is not permission to send it. Sending needs its own yes.
- Never promise placement, guarantee a followed link, or say you will "definitely include" a partner before editorial review.
- Never edit or publish a live article as part of an outreach commitment without explicit approval.
Editorial independence outranks the partnership. Mention a product when it helps the reader, and the writing pipeline's honesty rules still apply: no invented traffic, ranking, funding, customer or performance claims about anyone.
Step 1: take prospects from the GEO data, do not re-derive them
node scripts/prospects-from-geo.mjs --min 2
node scripts/prospects-from-geo.mjs --min 2 --authority # paid, adds Domain Rating
This reads data/geo-latest.json and returns the hosts an AI actually cited
when answering your registry questions, ranked by how often you were absent
from those answers.
That ranking is the point. A host cited on a question where the engine named two rivals and not you is a page actively shaping an answer you are losing. A generic search for " blogs" finds a similar set with none of that evidence attached.
Four tiers, and the tier decides the play:
| Tier | What it means | The play |
|---|---|---|
| Partner | Already a customer, supplier, integration or existing relationship | Warmest. A contact and a reason to talk exist. |
| Prospect | Cited, not a competitor or a platform | The normal research and pitch path. |
| Competitor | Sells what you sell | Never pitch. Read what they publish; that is the gap. |
| Directory | Review sites, listicle farms | Getting listed is a different task, not an article email. |
The competitor tier is read from the confirmed dictionary that geo-monitor
maintains, so it improves as that file does. Partners come from
outreach.partnerHosts in the config, which you fill in by hand.
Partners first, always. Where their own article about their category is cited and omits that you exist alongside them, that is a gap in their coverage as much as in your link profile. That framing is honest and it is the whole pitch.
A competitor being highly cited is a finding about the category. Report it, do not email it.
Step 2: research through the tool layer
Every command below runs through Monid, so there is no separate contract for
each of these. Run monid inspect for the current price before a batch.
Find and read the exact target page. Never pitch from a homepage skim.
monid run -p context.dev -e /web/search \
--query '{"query":"<their topic> site:<their domain>","limit":10}'
monid run -p context.dev -e /web/scrape/markdown \
--query '{"url":"<the exact article URL>"}'
Scraping the page to clean markdown costs a fraction of a cent and is what makes a real observation possible instead of a generic compliment.
Measure their authority instead of guessing it.
node scripts/prospects-from-geo.mjs --min 2 --authority
One batched call returns Domain Rating, referring domains and traffic estimates for up to a hundred hosts. Do it once the list is short enough that a measured number changes a decision, not before.
Confirm who they are, and validate the address before it is ever used. A bounced first email burns the prospect.
monid run -p pdl -e /v5/company/enrich --query '{"website":"<domain>"}'
monid run -p api.strale.io -e /x402/email-validate --query '{"email":"<address>"}'
Read valid, MX records, whether it is a role address, and any typo
suggestion. A role address (info@, hello@) is not disqualifying but lowers
the reply odds and should be recorded as such. Validation is not permission
to send.
Record every address with its source, the exact source URL, the date checked and a confidence note. Source preference, best first: an inbound message, an official partnership or contact page, the help centre, a named employee author, then a clearly labelled third party.
Step 3: test the workflow fit before scoring anything
State both products as one sentence, in order:
<their product> does <step> -> <your product> does <the adjacent step>
If their core function replaces yours, defer. A neutral comparison is a different piece of work with a different approval.
The partners that work are the layers either side of what you do: the thing that runs before you, the thing that runs after you, and the suppliers whose capability you distribute. Anything that occupies the same step is a competitor, however friendly the conversation.
Step 4: score, and be honest about what the score is
Score each dimension 1 to 5, then score = sum(dimension / 5 * weight).
| Dimension | Weight | A 5 means |
|---|---|---|
| GEO citation strength | 25 | Cited repeatedly on questions where you were absent |
| Workflow complementarity | 20 | Clearly the adjacent step, not a substitute |
| Domain authority | 20 | Measured, not inferred |
| Content activity | 15 | Recent, sustained, useful publishing |
| Contactability | 10 | A named editor, founder or official channel exists |
| Natural link space | 10 | A specific existing page where you genuinely belong |
85+ first batch. 75 to 84 contact after confirming the page and the owner. 60 to 74 monitor. Below 60 defer.
The first dimension replaces the usual "SEO visibility" because it is better evidence for the actual goal: you want to be in the answer, and citation data measures that directly.
Step 5: draft
Cold first contact: use references/cold-email-template.md. Other situations (inbound reply, placement live, follow-up) are in references/email-frameworks.md. Adapt every one. Never send two prospects the same body.
Five short blocks, and the first must prove the article was read. The test: could this sentence have been written without opening the page? If yes, rewrite it.
What you may offer, all of it true:
- A specific placement on one of your guides, subject to editorial review.
- Real measured numbers from your own testing, with the date and the input.
- Screenshots and an approved reference pack so they describe you accurately.
- A genuine distribution argument, when one exists.
What is never said: any of the phrases at the end of the frameworks file, plus anything about your funding, customer count, traffic or team size.
Step 6: triage the reply
| Reply | Next action |
|---|---|
| Interested | Go to Step 7. In the same reply, ask for their materials (approved description, priority features, preferred landing page, accuracy notes, two or three current screenshots) and attach your reference pack now, not later. |
| Questions | Answer them factually and link the docs. Do not re-pitch. A second pitch inside a reply thread reads as pressure and converts worse than a plain answer. |
| Declined | One line of thanks, record the reason, close the row. Do not pivot to a different article in the same thread. |
| No reply | One follow-up, only if delivery succeeded and the fit still holds. Then stop. |
Silence is recorded as no reply, never as a decline with a reason attached.
Do not invent a motive for a person who has not written back.
Step 7: write their placement first
This is the move that makes the whole pipeline work. You publish their mention before asking for anything. Full playbook: references/reciprocal-placement.md.
Short version: pick a host article that genuinely needs them (thicken in place,
never change a live URL), brief content-thicken with sourced facts only, stop
at preview, get a human yes, publish.
The gate: if the reader benefit of that link cannot be stated in one sentence, there is no placement and the outreach ends at the email. A section that exists only to hold a link is a link scheme, and it reads that way to the partner as much as to a search engine.
Publishing is its own authorisation. It is never implied by "the draft is good".
Step 8: deliver, then ask
Send the live URL with the reference pack attached. Body is in references/reciprocal-placement.md.
Two rules. The delivery carries no ask, and it says so out loud. The ask that follows is conditional, "if a mention ever fits one of your pieces", never "in exchange" and never "reciprocal".
If nothing comes back, one follow-up, then stop. Never pull your placement because they did not reciprocate. If it was editorially correct on the day it published, it stays correct.
Step 9: track
One row per company or distinct target article, schema in references/tracker-schema.md. Use the helper so the state rules are enforced rather than remembered:
node scripts/tracker.mjs list
node scripts/tracker.mjs add --company "<name>" --url "<their domain>" \
--article "<exact target article URL>" [--email <addr>]
node scripts/tracker.mjs state <id> <state> [--message-id <id>] [--note "<evidence>"]
sent is only ever recorded from an authoritative send event with a message
id; the helper refuses it otherwise. It is never inferred from a finished
draft. The two placement columns move independently: theirs going live does not
mean yours did.
Step 10: verify a live placement
- Destination URL correct, anchor and surrounding context sensible.
- The description of you is factually right.
- Page returns a success status and is not blocked from indexing.
- Link attributes:
nofollow,sponsored, redirects. Record as facts. A nofollow link can still carry referral and partnership value. - Whether the reciprocal content exists and stands up editorially.
- Re-run the GEO question it was meant to influence. That is the only test that matters here: did being on that page change whether an AI names you.
Output requirements
Research: evidence, score, risk, recommended target page, contact and its source, next action.
Email: recipient and address source, subject, body, materials requested, and
the authorisation stage in plain words: draft only, approved, or sent.
Batch: the prospect table first, and an explicit send authorisation before any message is transmitted.
Related
- Prospects come from
geo-monitorrun data. - Placements land in guides written by
content-thicken, which owns the product canon and the pricing policy this skill inherits. - Both read the same config and data directory.