Cold Outreach

---
name: cold-outreach
description: "Use when writing a cold email or LinkedIn DM to a stranger and its cadence: first-touch copy under a word ceiling, 4-7 step bump sequences, per-inbox volume and warm-up limits, the compliant opt-out footer. NOT SPF/DKIM/DMARC setup (that is email-deliverability), NOT sourcing the list (that is lead-gen), NOT life after a reply (that is sales-pipeline)."
tags: [cold-email, outreach, sequences, deliverability, sales]
recommends: [lead-gen, sales-pipeline, email-deliverability, proposals, marketing]
origin: risco
---

# Cold Outreach — The Words and the Cadence of the Cold Touch

*You write the message a stranger actually replies to, and the sending rhythm that keeps the mailbox provider delivering it. You do not set up DNS, source the list, or run the CRM.*

This skill owns two things and only two: the **copy** of an unsolicited 1:1 touch (cold email, LinkedIn note/DM) and the **cadence** around it (step count, spacing, per-inbox volume, warm-up ramp, the compliant footer). Everything upstream and downstream belongs to a sibling — route by naming the owner, do not improvise their job:

| The ask | Owner | Why it is not here |
|---|---|---|
| Find / scrape / qualify the prospect list or ICP | `lead-gen` | This skill assumes you already have a verified recipient. |
| Set up SPF, DKIM, DMARC, a tracking domain, or diagnose DNS-level spam landing | `email-deliverability` | This skill *applies* the provider rules to cadence; it does not configure auth. |
| Manage what happens after a reply — stages, tasks, CRM hygiene, close forecast | `sales-pipeline` | The moment a reply lands the relationship leaves this skill. |
| Write the proposal / SOW / pricing after a prospect engages | `proposals` | A cold touch earns a conversation, not a contract. |
| Inbound launch emails, nurture to an opted-in list, marketing-site copy | `marketing` (`../marketing/SKILL.md`) | Opted-in and broadcast copy is a different game from a 1:1 cold touch. |
| Actually wire the send through Gmail/an ESP API or a scheduler | `email-connector` / `google-workspace` | This skill produces text + a plan; it does not push the send. |

## The reply-rate reality (calibrate before you write)

Cold email is a low-yield channel by nature, and most "improve my copy" requests are really "stop fighting the math." Set expectations against the 2026 band:

- **Average reply rate ≈ 3.43%.** Top quartile ≈ 5.5%. Elite (top 10%) ≈ 10.7%+. *(Instantly Cold Email Benchmark Report 2026, accessed 2026-06-02.)*
- So **5-10% is solid, 10%+ is excellent, under 2% means something upstream is broken** — usually the list or the deliverability, not the prose.

The two levers that actually move the number, in order:

1. **Relevance** — the right person, with a real reason you reached out *now*. A perfect email to the wrong list still dies.
2. **Deliverability** — if it lands in spam, copy is irrelevant. This is why cadence and volume (below) are part of *this* skill's job even though the DNS plumbing is not.

Cleverness ranks a distant third. Do not sell wit; sell relevance, delivered.

## Diagnosing a failing campaign — read the metric, then fix the right lever

Most rescue requests describe a *symptom*, not a cause, and the instinct (theirs and a naive agent's) is to rewrite the prose. Usually the prose is the wrong lever. Diagnose by the **earliest broken metric in the funnel** — fix that one, ignore everything downstream of it, because a downstream number can't be read until the upstream one is healthy.

| Symptom the user reports | The number that's actually broken | Almost never the cause | What to fix, in order |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Bounces / lands in spam / domain flagged" | Bounce > 2% or sudden deliverability drop | Copy | List hygiene → `lead-gen`; sending auth + warm-up → `email-deliverability`. Stop sending until fixed. |
| "Low open rate" (< ~30-40% on a verified list) | Delivery + subject line | Body copy (they never saw it) | First confirm it's not spam-foldering (a deliverability tell). If delivery is fine, the **subject and from-name** are the only things they saw — rewrite those, leave the body alone. |
| "Good opens, ~zero replies" | The hook + the CTA | Subject (it worked) / volume | The INFER line is generic or the CTA isn't binary. Re-derive the hook (four-line bridge); make the ask one yes/no question. This is the #1 misdiagnosed case. |
| "Replies but all negative / 'not interested'" | Targeting or timing, not wording | The email itself | You're reaching the wrong role or the wrong moment — a `lead-gen` ICP problem. Polishing the copy won't convert a person with no need. |
| "First email gets replies, sequence doesn't" | The follow-ups repeat instead of adding an angle | The cadence length | Each step must add ONE new angle (proof → new pain → breakup). Delete any step that restates step 1. Confirm the breakup exists. |
| "It all works at 20/day, dies when I scale" | Per-inbox volume / reputation | Copy | Don't raise per-inbox volume — add inboxes and hold 20-50/day each. See the cadence table. |

The governing rule: **the prose is the lever only when opens are healthy and replies are absent.** If opens are low, the prose is unread; if replies are negative, the prose found the wrong person. Name the broken metric back to the user before you touch a word — it's the single highest-value thing this skill does that an unaided agent skips.

## Anatomy of a first touch

Hard constraints for the opening email:

- **Under ~80 words.** Elite performers stay below this; brevity plus a single binary CTA beats a long multi-CTA email. *(Instantly Benchmark 2026.)*
- **One observed hook** — a specific, real signal about *them* (a launch, a job post, a number from their site). Not "I came across your company."
- **One binary CTA** — a yes/no question they can answer in one tap ("Worth a 15-min look next week?"), not "let me know your thoughts" and not two asks.
- **Subject line under ~6 words, no clickbait, no "Re:" fakery.** It should read like a colleague wrote it, not a campaign.

Bad → Good rewrite:

```text
BAD (78 words, no real hook, vague + double CTA, spam-flavored):
Subject: Quick question + a free guide for you!!

Hi there, I hope this email finds you well! I came across your company
and was really impressed by what you're doing in the space. We help
companies like yours grow faster with our cutting-edge platform. I'd
love to hop on a call to walk you through it, or I can send over a free
guide — whatever works! Let me know your thoughts. Looking forward to
hearing from you!

GOOD (49 words, one signal, one binary CTA):
Subject: your March hiring for 3 SREs

Hi Dana — saw Acme is hiring three SREs this quarter. Usually that means
on-call pain is outrunning the team. We cut alert noise ~40% for two
infra teams your size in their first month.

Worth a 15-min look next week — yes or no?
```

The Good version names a real signal (`{{signal}}`), states one concrete outcome (`{{outcome}}`), and asks one binary question. No greeting filler, no "free", no double ask.

## Deriving the hook — the four-line bridge (this is the hard part)

"Use a real signal" is advice everyone gives and almost nobody executes. The reason a personalized email still reads generic is that the writer names the signal and then jumps straight to a generic pain ("...so you probably want to grow faster"). The skill of a cold open is the **inference chain** from an observable fact to a pain the reader silently agrees with. Build it in four lines, on paper, before you write a word of copy:

1. **OBSERVE** — the raw, checkable fact. ("Acme posted 3 SRE reqs in Q1.") It must be something you could screenshot. If you can't cite where you saw it, it is not a signal.
2. **INFER** — the operational consequence a person *in that role* feels. ("3 SRE openings unfilled for a quarter = the on-call rotation is thin and the existing team is absorbing the pages.") This is the line bare agents skip. The inference must be specific to the role and non-obvious enough that the reader thinks "how did they know that" — not "everyone says that."
3. **BRIDGE** — connect the inference to the one thing you do. ("We cut the page volume so a thin rotation survives without the missing hires.") Not your whole value prop — the single slice that maps to *this* inference.
4. **PROVE** — one comparable, with a number if you have it. ("~40% fewer alerts for two infra teams your size, month one.")

The first-touch body is literally lines 2→3→4 in order; line 1 becomes the subject. If the INFER line is generic, the email is generic no matter how many merge fields you add. **Test the INFER line in isolation: would it be false for a competitor in the same situation? If it is true of everyone, it is a platitude — go back to the OBSERVE step and pick a sharper fact.**

Two boundaries on the OBSERVE line, because both are unrecoverable once sent: keep it **professional, public and business-relevant** ("saw you're hiring 3 SREs" is relevant; "saw you were at the lake house last weekend" is surveillance), and **never invent it** — a fabricated "I loved your recent post on X" that does not exist destroys trust on contact.

When the user hands you only a company name and no signal, do not invent one. Ask for (or, if you have web access, look up) one of these signal classes, ranked by reply lift: a **hiring/role-change** signal > a **funding/launch/news** signal > a **tech-stack or job-description detail** > a **public number from their own site/report** > a **shared context** (mutual, group, event). A generic industry trend ("AI is changing your space") is not a signal and never clears the INFER test. If no true signal exists at all, that is a `lead-gen` targeting gap, not a copy task. Worked OBSERVE→INFER→BRIDGE→PROVE chains across six industries live in `references/hook-derivation.md`.

## The sequence — decision table

A first email captures **~58% of replies; steps 2-7 add the remaining ~42%**, and reply rates fall off sharply after the 5th email. *(Instantly Benchmark 2026.)* So the sequence is non-optional, but it is short. **4-7 touches, 2-4 days apart, each adding ONE new angle** — never "just bumping this up."

| Step | Day offset | Angle (one new thing) | CTA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | The observed signal + outcome | Binary yes/no |
| 2 | +3 | A proof point / mini case study | Same binary ask, reframed |
| 3 | +7 | A different pain or angle on the value | Lower-friction ask (a resource, not a call) |
| 4 | +12 | Social proof or a relevant comparison | Binary ask |
| 5 (breakup) | +18 | Permission to stop — "should I close the file?" | One-question close |
| 6-7 (optional) | +25 / +35 | New trigger only if one genuinely appeared | Re-open, binary |

Rules that make the table work:

- **Stop at 5 unless a real new trigger appears.** Replies past the 5th email are thin; do not pad to 7 for its own sake.
- **The breakup (step 5) is the highest-converting follow-up after step 1** — it gives a graceful out and often gets the "actually, yes" reply. Always include it.
- **One angle per step.** If step 3 just restates step 1, delete step 3.
- **Keep follow-ups in the same thread** (reply to your own first email) so context travels with the touch.

## Channel adaptation — email vs LinkedIn

| Dimension | Cold email | LinkedIn |
|---|---|---|
| First-touch length | ≤ ~80 words | Connection note ≤ ~300 chars; DM ~3-4 sentences |
| Hook source | A site/news/hiring signal | One specific profile signal (a post, a role change, a shared group) |
| CTA | Binary yes/no question | Soft — a question or a relevant share, not a pitch in the note |
| Volume ceiling | 20-50/day per inbox (see below) | ~100 connection requests/week free, **safer under 80**, rolling weekly |
| Reply benchmark | ~3.43% avg, 10%+ elite | ~6-7% avg, 10%+ excellent |

*(LinkedIn figures: Skylead / Kondo / Expandi 2025-2026 guides, accessed 2026-06-02.)*

On LinkedIn the connection note must **not** pitch — earn the connection on a real signal, then make the ask in the first DM after they accept.

Reusable skeletons for both channels — first-touch + 4-step bump, with every variable slot (`{{signal}}`, `{{outcome}}`, `{{proof}}`) marked — live in `references/templates.md`. Start from a skeleton, then fill every slot with a *real* value before sending. An unfilled slot is a defect, not a placeholder to ship.

## Sending cadence & deliverability guardrails

You own the *cadence* side of deliverability; the DNS/auth side is `email-deliverability`. Apply these limits to the plan you hand the user:

- **Per inbox: 20-50 cold sends/day even after warm-up.** The technical Gmail ceiling is ~100, but cold mail should stay well under it. Need more volume? Add inboxes, do not raise the per-inbox number.
- **New-domain warm-up ramp** (warm-up mail counts toward the daily cap):

| Week | Sends/day per inbox |
|---|---|
| 1 | ~10-20 |
| 2 | ~20-35 |
| 3 | ~35-50 |
| 4+ | ~50-65 (hold cold sends at 20-50) |

- **Bounce rate under 2%.** A higher bounce means the list is stale → that is a `lead-gen` problem, not a copy problem.
- **Spam-complaint rate under 0.3%; Google advises under 0.1%.** One-click unsubscribe (RFC 8058: `List-Unsubscribe` + `List-Unsubscribe-Post`) is required for bulk senders to Gmail/Yahoo; Outlook applied the same from 2025-05-05, with Gmail/Yahoo enforcement ramping from Nov 2025. *(Google Workspace "Email sender guidelines"; Security Boulevard 2025-11; Proofpoint 2025 — accessed 2026-06-02.)*

If the user asks you to *configure* the `List-Unsubscribe` header, SPF, or DKIM, stop and route to `email-deliverability` — you specify that the opt-out must exist and be one-click; that skill wires the header.

## Compliance footer (every cold send needs one)

| Requirement | CAN-SPAM (US) | GDPR (EU B2B) |
|---|---|---|
| Sender identity | Accurate From/Reply-To, honest subject | Same |
| Postal address | A physical mailing address, required | Recommended; identify the controller |
| Opt-out | Clear opt-out, honored within 10 business days | Honored without undue delay (treat as 24-48h) |
| Legal basis | Not consent-based; truthful + opt-out suffices | Art. 6(1)(f) legitimate interest **with a documented LIA** |
| Penalty | Up to $53,088 per email (Jan 2025) | Up to €20M or 4% of global revenue |

*(Instantly compliance guide / Puzzle Inbox; litemail.ai / complydog GDPR guides 2026 — accessed 2026-06-02.)*

EU enforcement varies — UK ICO and France CNIL are permissive for B2B; Germany and Poland are stricter (Poland often requires prior consent). When the recipient is in the EU, write the footer for the strictest plausible jurisdiction. The full footer wording, the LIA checklist, and the CASL/Australia matrix → `references/compliance-footer.md`.

## Anti-patterns

| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Do instead |
|---|---|---|
| Blast 200/day from one new inbox | Trips spam filters; tanks domain reputation in days | Ramp per the table; hold 20-50/day; split across inboxes |
| Pitch in sentence one | No earned relevance; reads like a billboard | Lead with the observed signal, earn the ask |
| Two CTAs ("call OR I'll send a guide") | Splits the decision; lowers reply rate | One binary yes/no ask per email |
| "Just following up" / "circling back" with no new angle | Adds noise, not value; trains them to ignore you | Each step adds one new angle or it is deleted |
| Name-only mail merge or spintax (`{Hi\|Hey}`) as "personalization" | Recipients see the template underneath | One true `{{signal}}` per first touch or do not send |
| No opt-out / no postal address | CAN-SPAM/GDPR violation; complaint-rate spike | Always append the compliant footer |
| Subject like "Quick question!!" or "FREE" | Clickbait + spam-trigger words land you in spam | ≤6 plain words that read like a coworker wrote them |
| Padding to 7 steps for completeness | Replies past step 5 are thin; you just annoy | Stop at the breakup unless a real new trigger appears |
| "I hope this email finds you well" opener | The classic AI/template tell; wastes the first line | Open on the signal — your first 6 words are the hook |

To self-check a drafted email or sequence file, run `scripts/verify.sh path/to/draft.md` — it flags missing opt-out, multiple CTAs, over-ceiling word count, and spam/AI-tell phrases (read-only).