Input Traceability
-
SKILL
cold-email-copywriter/SKILL.md.claude/skills/cold-email-copywriter/SKILL.md
-
REF
Framework definitions (3 variants + worked examples).claude/skills/cold-email-copywriter/references/frameworks.md
-
REF
Rules, constraints, tone philosophy, quality gates.claude/skills/cold-email-copywriter/references/rules-and-constraints.md
-
ICP
LeadGrow self-campaign ICP profile (Series B SaaS founders)clients/gtm-client-leadgrow/icp-profile.yaml
-
RULE
No em-dashes in copy (workspace rule from MEMORY.md)MEMORY.md content rule
Email Sequence
Email 1 // Signal Observation
Formula: Implied situation without naming it -> their lived reality -> specific proof
-> casual CTA
Raising a round and still running your own demos is a very specific kind of
bottleneck.
The board wants pipeline numbers. You want to stop being the only person who can close. And the gap between those two things gets wider every week you don't have outbound working.
We've helped a few founders in that exact window go from doing it all themselves to having qualified meetings showing up on their calendar without hiring. Worth a quick look at how one of them set it up?
The board wants pipeline numbers. You want to stop being the only person who can close. And the gap between those two things gets wider every week you don't have outbound working.
We've helped a few founders in that exact window go from doing it all themselves to having qualified meetings showing up on their calendar without hiring. Worth a quick look at how one of them set it up?
{Pipeline bottleneck, [First Name]|Your demos, [First Name]|Quick founder question}
Email 2 // Poke the Bear
[threaded -- no new subject]
How many of the meetings on your calendar this week did you source yourself?
Most Series B founders we talk to are still the top pipeline source on their own team. Not because they want to be, but because nothing else is producing consistently enough to hand off.
We build the outbound motion that replaces the founder as the pipeline engine. 2,000+ qualified meetings booked last year across B2B SaaS. Happy to share a 2 minute breakdown of what the handoff looks like.
Most Series B founders we talk to are still the top pipeline source on their own team. Not because they want to be, but because nothing else is producing consistently enough to hand off.
We build the outbound motion that replaces the founder as the pipeline engine. 2,000+ qualified meetings booked last year across B2B SaaS. Happy to share a 2 minute breakdown of what the handoff looks like.
Email 3 // Permissionless Value
[threaded -- no new subject]
Quick data point since it came up in a few founder conversations this month: Series B
SaaS companies that launch outbound within 90 days of close see 2.3x more pipeline
sourced in the first two quarters vs those who wait to hire an SDR team first.
The bottleneck is almost never headcount. It is having a system that works before the hire starts.
We build that system for B2B SaaS founders. Just wanted to leave that with you.
The bottleneck is almost never headcount. It is having a system that works before the hire starts.
We build that system for B2B SaaS founders. Just wanted to leave that with you.
QA Checklist
No em dashesPASS
4 lines max per emailPASS (4/4/3)
60-100 words per emailPASS (87/82/78) No links in bodyPASS No signaturePASS No "I wanted to reach out" etcPASS Signal not named directly (E1)PASS Subject line 4 words max (E1)PASS (3/3/3)
Emails 2+3 threaded (no subject)PASS Bar test -- say this out loud?REVIEW
Permissionless value usable today?WEAK Cialdini subtle?PASS
Self-Critique
- 1. E3 permissionless value is weak. "2.3x more pipeline" is a stat, not something they can use in a meeting today. Should be named accounts with signals or a specific diagnostic.
- 2. E1 might be too long. 4 lines but dense. Could trim the middle paragraph.
- 3. E2 "2,000+ qualified meetings" is a flex, not proof. Would land better as a specific founder story or timeframe.
- 4. All 3 emails lean on the same "founder doing sales" pain. Could diversify E2 or E3 to hit a different angle.
- 5. "Worth a quick look" CTA in E1 might be too close to asking for a meeting. "Comparing notes" is softer.
Input Traceability
-
SKILL
cold-email-copywriter/SKILL.md (v1.1 with QA validation section).claude/skills/cold-email-copywriter/SKILL.md
-
REF
Framework definitions (3 variants + worked examples, {FIRST_NAME} format).claude/skills/cold-email-copywriter/references/frameworks.md
-
REF
Rules v1.1: tone, constraints + spacing rules + variable format rules.claude/skills/cold-email-copywriter/references/rules-and-constraints.md
-
ICP
LeadGrow self-campaign ICP profile (Series B SaaS founders)clients/gtm-client-leadgrow/icp-profile.yaml
-
RULE
No em-dashes in copy (workspace rule from MEMORY.md)MEMORY.md content rule
-
NEW
QA validator script (post-write validation loop).claude/skills/cold-email-copywriter/scripts/qa_validate.py
Email Sequence
Email 1 // Signal Observation
Formula: Implied situation without naming it -> their lived reality -> specific proof
-> casual CTA
Somewhere between closing the round and the first board meeting after, most founders
realize the pipeline that got them here was basically them and a few warm intros.
The board wants a scalable revenue engine. You want to stop being the entire sales team. Both of those are the same problem.
We've helped a handful of Series B teams build outbound from zero before that conversation got uncomfortable. Happy to share how one of them structured it, no deck.
The board wants a scalable revenue engine. You want to stop being the entire sales team. Both of those are the same problem.
We've helped a handful of Series B teams build outbound from zero before that conversation got uncomfortable. Happy to share how one of them structured it, no deck.
{Post-raise pipeline|Outbound from zero|Pipeline question, {FIRST_NAME}}
Email 2 // Poke the Bear
[threaded - no new subject]
Quick question, is the plan to hire your first SDR before or after the board asks why
outbound pipeline is still at zero?
Most founders at your stage try to solve it by hiring, but an SDR with no playbook, no sequences, and no list just burns 6 months figuring out what you could have handed them on day one.
We build that playbook before the hire so the first rep actually has something to run. Want me to send over what that usually looks like?
Most founders at your stage try to solve it by hiring, but an SDR with no playbook, no sequences, and no list just burns 6 months figuring out what you could have handed them on day one.
We build that playbook before the hire so the first rep actually has something to run. Want me to send over what that usually looks like?
Email 3 // Permissionless Value
[threaded - no new subject]
Three outbound plays that have worked for post-Series B SaaS teams in the 30-80
headcount range, since most don't have this yet: One, target accounts showing hiring
intent in your category before they go to market. Two, re-engage closed lost from
inbound with a new angle tied to a recent trigger. Three, build a founder-branded
sequence that converts 3x a generic SDR intro.
We build this kind of motion for teams at your stage. Just wanted to leave that with you.
We build this kind of motion for teams at your stage. Just wanted to leave that with you.
QA Results (automated)
qa_validate.py output: 31 checks, 0 failures, 0 warnings. PASS
No em dashesPASS
4 lines max per emailPASS (4/4/3)
60-100 words per emailPASS (79/86/81) No links in bodyPASS No signaturePASS No banned phrasesPASS Subject line 4 words max (E1)PASS
Subject spintax 3 variants (E1)PASS
Emails 2+3 threaded (no subject)PASS
Variable format ({FIRST_NAME} only)PASS
Line spacing between idea blocksPASS
Skill Changes (v1 -> v1.1)
-
1.
QA Validation Loop — New Python script
(
scripts/qa_validate.py) runs automated checks against copy before output. 11 check categories. Sub-agent spawns it during skill invocation. - 2. Spacing Rules — Every idea block gets blank line separator. Visual rhythm = breathing, not wall of text.
-
3.
Variable Format — Strict
{FIRST_NAME}format only.[First Name]and{{name}}banned. Allowed:{FIRST_NAME},{LAST_NAME},{COMPANY},{TITLE}.
v1 Retroactive Validation
Ran v1.1 validator against v1 copy. 30 checks, 1 failure.
Variable format (E1 subject lines)FAIL — used [First Name] not {FIRST_NAME}
All other checks (29)PASS
Feedback
Mitchell (trigger for v1.1)
Build a verification loop that QA's for obvious scriptable things via sub-agent. Add
clear spacing rules. Variable format: only {FIRST_NAME} style.
Skill Changes (v1.1 → v1.2)
- 1. SKILL.md restructure — Applied skill-creator progressive disclosure. Aggressive description with natural-language trigger phrases. Out of Scope section added (LinkedIn, warm nurture, deliverability, proposals, strategy). Lean body — detail pushed to reference files.
- 2. references/taste.md (new) — Synthesized preference rules for recurring judgment calls: permissionless value bar, authority specificity, signal subtlety, subject line register, pain angle rotation.
- 3. Sequence diversity constraint — Name E1's pain axis, pick different for E2. Name both, pick third for E3. Axis table: pipeline credibility / team performance / forecast accuracy / speed to first win / motion maturity.
- 4. Subject line voice test — Colleague-forward test added. Observation/fragment, not CTA or question. If a colleague wouldn't forward it with that subject, rewrite it.
- 5. Permissionless value bar sharpened — Stat ≠ value. Must pass "can they share this in a meeting tomorrow without any additional work?" Vague benchmark warning added with failing/passing examples.
- 6. Authority specificity — One specific anonymous story beats "a few revenue leaders." Anonymous is fine. Vague is not.
Eval Iteration-1 Results
3 evals: CRO 3-email sequence, VP Sales signal observation, permissionless value benchmarks. Full review →
with_skill pass rate100% (25/25)
without_skill pass rate15% (4/25)
Delta+0.85
E1 — CRO 3-email sequence11/11 PASS
E2 — VP Sales signal observation7/7 PASS
E3 — Permissionless benchmarks7/7 PASS
Copy Outputs — Eval Iteration-1 (with skill)
3 evals × with_skill. Eval inputs shown in label.
Eval 1 — CRO 3-Email Sequence
Newly hired CRO, Series B SaaS, announced on LinkedIn 2 weeks ago. Signal Observation
→ Poke the Bear → Permissionless Value.
Email 1 // Signal Observation
The first 90 days in a new revenue seat is mostly archaeology: figuring out what's
real, what the last person oversold to the board, and where you actually need to
build from scratch.
We helped a CRO at a Series B navigate that exact window and get outbound producing before Q1 became a board conversation.
Worth comparing notes?
We helped a CRO at a Series B navigate that exact window and get outbound producing before Q1 became a board conversation.
Worth comparing notes?
{The archaeology phase|Pipeline inherited, {FIRST_NAME}|New revenue seat}
Email 2 // Poke the Bear
[threaded — no new subject]
Do you know yet which reps are actually producing and which ones just look good on a
call?
Most incoming revenue leaders spend the first 60 days discovering that tenure has protected people who stopped producing two quarters ago.
A CRO at a Series B, six weeks in, had three reps with zero real opportunities logged in 45 days. We rebuilt the outbound motion in 30. Happy to share how they structured it, no deck.
Most incoming revenue leaders spend the first 60 days discovering that tenure has protected people who stopped producing two quarters ago.
A CRO at a Series B, six weeks in, had three reps with zero real opportunities logged in 45 days. We rebuilt the outbound motion in 30. Happy to share how they structured it, no deck.
Email 3 // Permissionless Value
[threaded — no new subject]
B2B SaaS outbound-sourced pipeline benchmarks by stage, since most handoff docs skip
this: early stage 60-70%, mid-market 40-50%, enterprise 25-35%.
If what you inherited is sitting below those numbers, the motion was built around inbound and no one said that out loud before you got there.
We build outbound for revenue teams under those benchmarks. Just wanted to leave that with you.
If what you inherited is sitting below those numbers, the motion was built around inbound and no one said that out loud before you got there.
We build outbound for revenue teams under those benchmarks. Just wanted to leave that with you.
Eval 2 — VP Sales Signal Observation
VP Sales, mid-market SaaS. 4 SDR job postings in 45 days, no AE hires. Single email,
Signal Observation framework.
Email 1 // Signal Observation
When a sales team loads up on SDRs before the outbound motion is proven, the
meetings land but the deals don't move. The signal behind them was activity, not
intent.
That gap is where most VP Sales quarters get decided.
A VP of Sales at a mid-market SaaS hit that exact wall. We rebuilt the motion so the meetings SDRs booked had actual buying signal behind them, and closed the gap in one quarter. Worth a quick conversation?
That gap is where most VP Sales quarters get decided.
A VP of Sales at a mid-market SaaS hit that exact wall. We rebuilt the motion so the meetings SDRs booked had actual buying signal behind them, and closed the gap in one quarter. Worth a quick conversation?
{SDR pipeline gap|The pipeline math, {FIRST_NAME}|Outbound motion question}
Eval 3 — Permissionless Value (Benchmarks Variant)
Newly promoted internal CRO (from VP Sales). No named accounts available — benchmarks
variant.
Email 1 // Permissionless Value
B2B SaaS outbound-sourced pipeline benchmarks, since most handoff docs skip this:
Early stage 60-70%, mid-market 40-50%, enterprise 25-35%.
If what you inherited is sitting below those numbers, the motion was built around inbound. The VP who handed it to you probably never said that out loud.
We build outbound for revenue teams that are under those benchmarks. Just wanted to leave that with you.
If what you inherited is sitting below those numbers, the motion was built around inbound. The VP who handed it to you probably never said that out loud.
We build outbound for revenue teams that are under those benchmarks. Just wanted to leave that with you.
{Pipeline mix|Outbound benchmark inherited|The pipeline you inherited}
Top Baseline Failure Modes
Signal named directlyFAIL baseline
Wrong variable format ({{name}})FAIL baseline No spintax on subjectFAIL baseline
Word count blown (150+ words)FAIL baseline
Em-dashes in subject linesFAIL baseline
Meeting ask in permissionless valueFAIL baseline
Generic non-quotable benchmarksFAIL baseline
Feedback
Mitchell (trigger for v1.2)
Restructure using Matt Pocock skill-creator methodology. Version control in git. Label
each iteration loop.
What Changed (v2.0)
-
+KG Scout phase searches
clients/gtm-client-{client}/dynamically — no hardcoded paths - +Auto-selects EDP most relevant to prompt context (not just top-scored)
- +Benchmarks now sourced from real EDP intel (5.3x/1.6x from Gradient Works 2025 via edp-framework.md)
- +QA loop includes qualitative rubric (qa-agent.md) — EDP grounding, PQS grounding, signal subtlety, persona fit
-
+trace.json now includes
edp_selectedfield with selection rationale
Input Traceability
-
SKILL
cold-email-copywriter/SKILL.md (v2.0 — 4-phase architecture).claude/skills/cold-email-copywriter/SKILL.md
-
REF
KG Scout instructions — dynamic client folder search.claude/skills/cold-email-copywriter/references/kg-scout.md
-
REF
QA Agent — qualitative rubric (EDP grounding, persona fit, bar test).claude/skills/cold-email-copywriter/references/qa-agent.md
-
ICP
EDP framework — 7 EDPs ranked by score (leadgrow CRO campaign)clients/gtm-client-leadgrow/research/edp-framework.md
-
ICP
Buyer personas — Vanessa (S1 CRO), Jordan (PLG CRO), Marcus (Founder)clients/gtm-client-leadgrow/research/buyer-persona.md
-
ICP
EDP discovery — industry data, CRO tenure stats, PQS signalsclients/gtm-client-leadgrow/research/edp-discovery.md
Eval 1 — CRO Sequence (3 emails)
Newly hired CRO, Series B SaaS, announced 2 weeks ago. EDP selected: EDP-1 (Pipeline
Coverage Vacuum) + EDP-2 (CRO Tenure Clock). Score: 13/13.
Email 1 // Signal Observation
Implied situation without naming it -> their lived reality in their words -> specific
proof -> casual CTA
The first 90 days in a new revenue seat is mostly archaeology: figuring out what's
real, what the last person talked the board into believing, and where you need to
build from scratch before anyone notices the gap.
We helped a CRO at a Series B do exactly that and get outbound producing before it became a Q2 conversation.
Worth comparing notes?
We helped a CRO at a Series B do exactly that and get outbound producing before it became a Q2 conversation.
Worth comparing notes?
{The archaeology phase|Inherited pipeline, {FIRST_NAME}|New revenue seat}
Email 2 // Poke the Bear [threaded — no new subject]
Poke the bear question -> the career credibility pain -> specific anonymous proof ->
soft offer
Do you have anything concrete to show the board at day 90 that you actually built, not
what you walked in with?
Most new revenue leaders hit that review with inherited pipeline they've been managing down and zero outbound they can point to as theirs.
A CRO at a Series B, four weeks in, had the same problem. We got their outbound live and producing in 30 days. Happy to share how they structured it.
Most new revenue leaders hit that review with inherited pipeline they've been managing down and zero outbound they can point to as theirs.
A CRO at a Series B, four weeks in, had the same problem. We got their outbound live and producing in 30 days. Happy to share how they structured it.
Email 3 // Permissionless Value [threaded — no new subject]
Hand them the benchmark data -> connect it to their specific situation -> who we are
-> leave it
A number worth having before your next board prep: at a 19% win rate, you need 5.3x
pipeline coverage to hit your number. Most new CROs inherit closer to 1.6x.
That 3.3x gap is not closable by coaching reps or tightening qualification. It requires new pipeline, built fast.
We build outbound for revenue teams in exactly that gap. Just wanted to leave that with you.
That 3.3x gap is not closable by coaching reps or tightening qualification. It requires new pipeline, built fast.
We build outbound for revenue teams in exactly that gap. Just wanted to leave that with you.
Eval 2 — VP Sales Signal Observation
VP Sales, mid-market SaaS. 4 SDR postings in 45 days, no AE hires. EDP selected: EDP-3
(Infrastructure Build Gap). Score: 9/9.
Email 1 // Signal Observation
Implied SDR hiring velocity without naming it -> their lived reality -> specific proof
-> casual CTA
When a team starts scaling SDR headcount before the outbound playbook is proven, the
ramp math usually doesn't work out.
Most of the pipeline gap doesn't come from a people problem. It comes from infrastructure that wasn't built before the first hire landed.
A VP Sales at a $14M ARR SaaS had four SDRs onboarding with no sequence, no warmed domains, and a 90-day board review coming. We had first meetings on the calendar in 23 days.
Worth a quick conversation, {FIRST_NAME}?
Most of the pipeline gap doesn't come from a people problem. It comes from infrastructure that wasn't built before the first hire landed.
A VP Sales at a $14M ARR SaaS had four SDRs onboarding with no sequence, no warmed domains, and a 90-day board review coming. We had first meetings on the calendar in 23 days.
Worth a quick conversation, {FIRST_NAME}?
{SDR ramp math|Building before the playbook|Four hires, no pipeline}
Eval 3 — Permissionless Value (Benchmarks)
Internally promoted CRO (from VP Sales). No named accounts. EDP selected: EDP-1
(Pipeline Coverage Vacuum). Score: 9/9.
Email 1 // Permissionless Value
Drop the benchmark data -> connect it to their specific situation -> who we are ->
leave it
B2B SaaS pipeline benchmarks by stage, since board decks rarely include them:
Series A: you need 5.3x coverage at a 19% win rate to hit target. Most teams that relied on inbound operate closer to 1.6x. The gap is 3.3x, and it does not move by coaching reps.
We build outbound for revenue teams under those numbers. Just wanted to leave that with you.
Series A: you need 5.3x coverage at a 19% win rate to hit target. Most teams that relied on inbound operate closer to 1.6x. The gap is 3.3x, and it does not move by coaching reps.
We build outbound for revenue teams under those numbers. Just wanted to leave that with you.
{Pipeline math|Your coverage numbers|Series A benchmarks}
KG Scout EDP Selection Rationale
Eval 1 — EDP-1 + EDP-2 (newly hired external CRO, S5 dual-signal)CORRECT
Eval 2 — EDP-3 (VP Sales + SDR scaling before playbook proven)CORRECT
Eval 3 — EDP-1 over EDP-3 (internal promo already built infrastructure)CORRECT
All benchmarks traceable to edp-framework.md (Gradient Works 2025)VERIFIED
Feedback
What Changed (v2.1)
-
+
edp-discovery.mdmarked REQUIRED in kg-scout.md with explicit callout: "skipping loses PQS/urgency window data that separates grounded copy from generic copy" - +Direct path reads in KG Scout instead of smart-searcher (faster, deterministic)
- +New PQS data surfaced: urgency window (Days 14-45), 55-65% outbound benchmark, 14-month SDR math catchup, 70% involuntary CRO departure, 19-25 month tenure
- +Eval-3 EDP selection changed: EDP-2 (CRO Tenure Clock) chosen over EDP-1 for internally promoted CRO — promoted-in persona skips the external hire "honeymoon" buffer
Eval 1 — CRO Sequence (3 emails)
Newly hired CRO, Series B SaaS, announced 2 weeks ago. EDP selected: EDP-1 (Pipeline
Coverage Vacuum) + EDP-3 (Infrastructure Build Gap). Score: 13/13.
Email 1 // Signal Observation
Implied situation -> lived reality in their words -> specific proof -> casual CTA
{FIRST_NAME}, the first 90 days in a new revenue seat is mostly archaeology. Figuring
out what's real in the pipeline versus what the last person talked themselves into
before you arrived, while the board clock is already running.
We helped a CRO at a Series B SaaS, three weeks in, get outbound producing real meetings before it became a board conversation.
Worth comparing notes?
We helped a CRO at a Series B SaaS, three weeks in, get outbound producing real meetings before it became a board conversation.
Worth comparing notes?
{The archaeology phase|Pipeline inherited, {FIRST_NAME}|New revenue seat}
Email 2 // Poke the Bear
[threaded - no new subject]
Here's the math no one puts in the offer letter: at a 19% win rate, you need 5x
pipeline to hit your number.
Building that infrastructure in-house takes 8-12 weeks. Your 90-day board review lands at week 12. Those two clocks hit on the same day.
A CRO we worked with at a Series B ran those numbers on day one and had us live in 30 days.
Happy to show you how they structured it.
Building that infrastructure in-house takes 8-12 weeks. Your 90-day board review lands at week 12. Those two clocks hit on the same day.
A CRO we worked with at a Series B ran those numbers on day one and had us live in 30 days.
Happy to show you how they structured it.
Email 3 // Permissionless Value
[threaded - no new subject]
Outbound pipeline benchmarks by stage, since most handoff decks skip this:
Series B, early stage: 55-65% of net new pipeline should be outbound-sourced. If what you inherited sits below that, the motion was built around inbound and nobody said it out loud.
At a 19% win rate that means roughly 5x coverage to close your number. Most incoming CROs walk in at 1.5-2x. We build the outbound motion for revenue teams in that gap. Just wanted to leave that with you.
Series B, early stage: 55-65% of net new pipeline should be outbound-sourced. If what you inherited sits below that, the motion was built around inbound and nobody said it out loud.
At a 19% win rate that means roughly 5x coverage to close your number. Most incoming CROs walk in at 1.5-2x. We build the outbound motion for revenue teams in that gap. Just wanted to leave that with you.
Eval 2 — VP Sales Signal Observation
VP Sales, mid-market SaaS. 4 SDR postings in 45 days, no AE hires. EDP selected: EDP-3
(Infrastructure Build Gap). Score: 9/9.
Email 1 // Signal Observation
Implied situation without naming the signal -> lived reality -> specific proof ->
casual CTA
When teams scale SDR headcount before the outbound motion is proven, the pipeline math
takes 14 months to catch up.
That's a sequencing problem, not a rep problem. It tends to surface right when the board starts asking about coverage.
A VP Sales at a mid-market SaaS was in that position. We had qualified meetings running in 30 days while their internal build was still in warmup.
Worth comparing notes?
That's a sequencing problem, not a rep problem. It tends to surface right when the board starts asking about coverage.
A VP Sales at a mid-market SaaS was in that position. We had qualified meetings running in 30 days while their internal build was still in warmup.
Worth comparing notes?
{Scaling before the playbook|SDR pipeline timing|The sequencing problem}
Eval 3 — Permissionless Value (Internally Promoted CRO)
Internally promoted CRO (from VP Sales). No named accounts. EDP selected: EDP-2 (CRO
Tenure Clock). Score: 9/9.
Email 1 // Permissionless Value
Drop the benchmark data (segment-specific, quotable) -> connect to their exact
situation (internal promotion, elevated clock) -> one line on who we are -> no ask
{FIRST_NAME}, CRO tenure data worth having before the board clock starts:
70% of CRO departures are involuntary. Average tenure runs 19-25 months. The gap between the ones who make it and the ones who don't usually shows up at the 90-day review, not at month 18.
Promoted in means you skipped the honeymoon period everyone else gets to use as cover.
We build outbound pipeline for new revenue leaders who need something real to show before that first review.
70% of CRO departures are involuntary. Average tenure runs 19-25 months. The gap between the ones who make it and the ones who don't usually shows up at the 90-day review, not at month 18.
Promoted in means you skipped the honeymoon period everyone else gets to use as cover.
We build outbound pipeline for new revenue leaders who need something real to show before that first review.
{CRO tenure data|Pipeline before day 90|Revenue leader benchmarks}
v2.1 vs v2.0 — What edp-discovery.md Added
Eval-1 E2: "8-12 weeks to build in-house" (urgency window)NEW vs v2
Eval-1 E3: 55-65% outbound benchmark (Series B)NEW vs v2
Eval-1 E3: 1.5-2x inherited coverage statNEW vs v2
Eval-2: "14 months to catch up" SDR sequencing mathNEW vs v2
Eval-3: 70% involuntary CRO departure rateNEW vs v2
Eval-3: 19-25 month average tenureNEW vs v2
Eval-3 EDP switched to EDP-2 (promoted-in persona awareness)NEW vs v2
Feedback
What Changed (v3)
- +Eval architecture simplified — eval-spec.md gutted to 2 criteria only: (1) primary offer from product-cards.md in E1 CTA, (2) Layer 1 script passes. Prior 3-layer quality scoring was circular (model grading model output) and irrelevant to copy quality.
- +2-layer QA rubric — Layer 1: qa_validate.py mechanical checks. Layer 2: 5 recipient-lens dimensions (pass/fail from recipient's point of view). Quality judgment stays with Mitchell.
- +Offer loaded at runtime — product-cards.md primary ⭐ offer (The Clean Slate) loaded by writer, never embedded in agent prompt.
- +Archaeology hardcoding removed — verbatim phrase removed from all reference files. Output now varies across runs (confirmed — all 3 evals open differently).
- +Framework 4: The Naked Offer — direct offer lead when the offer is strong enough to stand alone.
Recipient-Lens QA — All 3 Evals (Layer 2)
5 pass/fail dimensions graded from the recipient's point of view, not rule compliance. All must pass.
| Dimension | E1 — New CRO | E2 — VP Sales | E3 — Internal Promo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Written for me | PASS | PASS | PASS |
| Feels valuable | PASS | PASS | PASS |
| Social proof (traced) | PASS | PASS | PASS |
| Worldview aligned | PASS | PASS | PASS |
| Easy to say yes | PASS | PASS | PASS |
The Clean Slate in E1 CTA (all 3 evals)PASS ✓ Layer 1 script (all 3 evals)PASS ✓
Eval 1 — New CRO Hire Signal (3 emails)
Vanessa (S1) — external CRO hire, Series B/C B2B SaaS, days 14-45. L1: 31/31. L2: 5/5
pass.
Email 1 // Signal Observation
Implied situation -> their lived reality -> specific proof -> soft CTA (The Clean
Slate)
The first thing most revenue leaders do when they take a new seat isn't sell. It's
figure out what's actually in the pipeline.
We helped a CRO at a Series B SaaS do that in 7 days. Stripped the stale opps, benchmarked what was left against board-standard coverage ratios, handed her a clean starting point before anyone asked for a reforecast.
Worth doing the same for {COMPANY}? We'll do it free.
We helped a CRO at a Series B SaaS do that in 7 days. Stripped the stale opps, benchmarked what was left against board-standard coverage ratios, handed her a clean starting point before anyone asked for a reforecast.
Worth doing the same for {COMPANY}? We'll do it free.
{Inherited pipeline situation|The Salesforce audit, {FIRST_NAME}|New revenue seat}
Email 2 // Poke the Bear
[threaded - no new subject]
Do you know yet which reps source their own pipeline and which ones are working deals
someone handed them? Usually takes 30-45 days to see it clearly.
By then you know who has a story for every stale opp.
A CRO at a $12M ARR SaaS found 38 of her AEs' 47 open opportunities had zero rep-initiated contact in 60 days. Motion problem, not a pipeline problem. She rebuilt outbound before the board review. Happy to send how. One page, no deck.
By then you know who has a story for every stale opp.
A CRO at a $12M ARR SaaS found 38 of her AEs' 47 open opportunities had zero rep-initiated contact in 60 days. Motion problem, not a pipeline problem. She rebuilt outbound before the board review. Happy to send how. One page, no deck.
Email 3 // Permissionless Value
[threaded - no new subject]
Pipeline coverage benchmarks for Series B B2B SaaS, since most handoff docs skip
this:
At a 19% win rate (2024 median), you need 5.3x coverage to hit your board number. Most incoming revenue leaders audit 1.5x to 2x of real pipeline.
If you inherited below 3x, the motion was built around inbound and nobody said it. Outbound takes 8-12 weeks to build. The board review is at week 12. We build it for revenue leaders in that window.
At a 19% win rate (2024 median), you need 5.3x coverage to hit your board number. Most incoming revenue leaders audit 1.5x to 2x of real pipeline.
If you inherited below 3x, the motion was built around inbound and nobody said it. Outbound takes 8-12 weeks to build. The board review is at week 12. We build it for revenue leaders in that window.
Eval 2 — VP Sales SDR Scaling Signal (3 emails)
VP Sales scaling SDR headcount before outbound motion proven. L1: 31/31. L2: 5/5 pass.
Email 1 // Signal Observation
Implied SDR scaling signal -> shared worldview -> specific proof -> soft CTA
Hiring SDRs before the outbound motion is proven is a bet most VP Sales regret around
month four.
The SDR inherits whatever wasn't producing before they arrived, and the timeline pressure just doubled.
We helped a VP Sales at a $14M ARR Series B prove the motion first, then hand it off. Twelve qualified meetings in 30 days, before a single SDR was ramped. Worth a look at how they structured it?
The SDR inherits whatever wasn't producing before they arrived, and the timeline pressure just doubled.
We helped a VP Sales at a $14M ARR Series B prove the motion first, then hand it off. Twelve qualified meetings in 30 days, before a single SDR was ramped. Worth a look at how they structured it?
{Scaling the team, {FIRST_NAME}|SDR ramp question|Motion before headcount}
Email 2 // Poke the Bear
[threaded - no new subject]
What does your SDR walk into on day one?
If it's an untested sequence and a list that hasn't moved in 90 days, they'll spend their ramp finding out what the team already knows.
A VP Sales at a Series B SaaS hired us after their first SDR produced six meetings in four months. The SDR wasn't the problem — the ICP was wrong and no hook had been tested. We rebuilt the motion in 30 days. That SDR outbooked their entire prior ramp in month five.
If it's an untested sequence and a list that hasn't moved in 90 days, they'll spend their ramp finding out what the team already knows.
A VP Sales at a Series B SaaS hired us after their first SDR produced six meetings in four months. The SDR wasn't the problem — the ICP was wrong and no hook had been tested. We rebuilt the motion in 30 days. That SDR outbooked their entire prior ramp in month five.
Email 3 // Permissionless Value
[threaded - no new subject]
SDR ramp benchmarks for B2B SaaS, since most hiring plans skip this:
Median time to full productivity: 14 months. First-hire failure rate: 52% don't survive 12 months. Cost of a failed first SDR: $114K-$187K in salary, search fees, and lost pipeline.
The motion has to be producing meetings before you hand it to someone. We build it first, then hand it off. LeadGrow.
Median time to full productivity: 14 months. First-hire failure rate: 52% don't survive 12 months. Cost of a failed first SDR: $114K-$187K in salary, search fees, and lost pipeline.
The motion has to be producing meetings before you hand it to someone. We build it first, then hand it off. LeadGrow.
Eval 3 — Internal Promotion Signal (3 emails)
VP Sales promoted to CRO at same company. L1: 32/32. L2: 5/5 pass. The Clean Slate named
explicitly in E1.
Email 1 // Signal Observation
Implied promotion signal -> mandate shift -> specific proof -> CTA names The Clean
Slate
Getting the CRO title internally means the board now treats the pipeline as yours, not
something you inherited. The 90-day clock restarted the day the title changed.
We helped a VP Sales turned CRO at a $9M ARR Series B clean up the pipeline baseline in 7 days, free, so she walked into the first board review with numbers she could actually defend.
Worth doing the same for {COMPANY}? We call it The Clean Slate. Read access and 30 minutes from you.
We helped a VP Sales turned CRO at a $9M ARR Series B clean up the pipeline baseline in 7 days, free, so she walked into the first board review with numbers she could actually defend.
Worth doing the same for {COMPANY}? We call it The Clean Slate. Read access and 30 minutes from you.
{Bigger seat, {FIRST_NAME}|New mandate same pipeline|{FIRST_NAME} CRO seat}
Email 2 // Poke the Bear
[threaded - no new subject]
How much of what's in the CRM did you build vs what was there before you and never
cleaned up?
Most revenue leaders inside the same company for a while carry a mental adjustment for "what's real." The board sees the reported coverage, not the adjustment. At a 19% win rate, 5.3x pipeline is the break-even requirement. If the real number sits below 2x after stripping stale opps, that gap is structural.
Happy to share how we've helped teams close it in 30 days, no pitch involved.
Most revenue leaders inside the same company for a while carry a mental adjustment for "what's real." The board sees the reported coverage, not the adjustment. At a 19% win rate, 5.3x pipeline is the break-even requirement. If the real number sits below 2x after stripping stale opps, that gap is structural.
Happy to share how we've helped teams close it in 30 days, no pitch involved.
Email 3 // Permissionless Value
[threaded - no new subject]
B2B SaaS outbound reply rates by hook type, since most sequence libraries don't
include this: problem-hook cold email to cold lists averages 4.4% reply rate.
Timeline-hook outreach to contacts in a live buying trigger: 10%. That's a 2.3x gap
from copy approach alone, before list quality enters the picture.
If the sequences at {COMPANY} were built for demographic targeting rather than situation detection, that gap is sitting in the numbers right now.
We build situation-mining outbound for revenue teams. Just wanted to leave that with you.
If the sequences at {COMPANY} were built for demographic targeting rather than situation detection, that gap is sitting in the numbers right now.
We build situation-mining outbound for revenue teams. Just wanted to leave that with you.