AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Draft Reply

skill-jain777-jobclaw-skills-draft-reply · by jain777

>

No reviews yet
0 installs
34 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-jain777-jobclaw-skills-draft-reply

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-jain777-jobclaw-skills-draft-reply)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
3mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Draft Reply? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

draft-reply

One reply, one intent, no auto-send. Hard rules: [../_shared/RULES.md](../_shared/RULES.md). Use Communication / Leadership verbs from [../tailor-resume/reference/action-verbs.md](../tailor-resume/reference/action-verbs.md). All reply-intent labels come from [../../knowledge/status/taxonomy.md](../../knowledge/status/taxonomy.md).

Inputs

  1. Thread — the inbound email plus any prior thread (paste or --in inbox/.json).
  2. Intent — one of reply-schedule | reply-accept | reply-decline | reply-ask | reply-info | follow-up.
  • For reply-accept, also pass accept_kind ∈ {schedule, assessment, offer} (templates diverge).
  1. Triage extraction (optional){ dates[], links[], asks[], deadline, ... } from inbox/triage-.json. If absent, the skill runs a thin in-line classify to recover the minimum (don't write a triage record back — that's triage-inbox's job).
  2. Profileprofile/master-profile.md for signature, timezone, voice, and (if intent is reply-info) the preferences.* data the recruiter is asking for.
  3. Specifics:
  • reply-schedule → 2–3 candidate windows the user offers (in the user's tz, with the recruiter's tz noted).
  • reply-accept (offer)do not write an acceptance email here. Output a deliberately conservative acknowledgement that buys time and points the user to /coach-negotiation. Emit a warning in the rationale.
  • reply-decline → reason category (accepted-elsewhere | not-aligned | timing | other); the skill phrases gracefully.
  • reply-ask → exactly one question to ask.
  • reply-info → which preferences.* fields the recruiter asked for.
  • follow-up → days since last contact (drives tone — gentle at 7d, firm at 21d).

Method

  1. Region note. Read the target region pack — tone defaults (US: direct, IN: warmer with explicit thanks); spelling variant; date format used in the body.
  1. Mirror the inbound. Match salutation style (Hi vs Dear ), formality, length expectations. Don't out-formal the recruiter; don't be sloppier either.
  1. Interpolate from extraction. Dates → write in the format used by the inbound (or the region default if conflicting). Links → use the verbatim URL; if a calendar link is in links[].kind == schedule, prefer that to your own time proposals unless the recruiter explicitly asked for times.
  1. Apply the intent template. Each intent has a clean shape:
  • reply-schedule — 3 short lines: thanks + acknowledgement / 2–3 candidate windows (timezone explicit) / sign-off.
  • reply-accept (schedule) — 2–3 lines: confirms a specific time / confirms the link or platform / sign-off.
  • reply-accept (assessment) — 2–3 lines: confirms commitment + a realistic submission ETA / one question if there's ambiguity (else cut) / sign-off.
  • reply-accept (offer)buys time, does not accept. 3 lines: gratitude + that you're reviewing + a soft expected-response date (I'll come back to you by ). Suggest /coach-negotiation in the console rationale.
  • reply-decline — 3 short lines: gratitude / brief reason from the category (no detail beyond what the category gives) / door-open close ("would love to keep in touch").
  • reply-ask — 2 lines: one specific question / sign-off. Don't list multiple questions — pick the most consequential.
  • reply-info — 2–4 lines: provide the asked-for preferences.* data, exactly. CTC (IN) / work-auth (US) formatted per region conventions. No padding.
  • follow-up — 2–3 lines: polite reference to the last touch (date) / brief restating-of-interest / sign-off. Tone scales with elapsed days.
  1. Signature. Use the profile's signature block (the user's name + one credibility line — current title only). Don't add address or social links beyond what the user's signature already has.
  1. Self-check. Run the anti-patterns + rubric before output.

Output

  • Console: the reply (subject if email; otherwise Re: ).
  • Write inbox/replies/.md — body + subject as H1.
  • Two-line rationale: what I assumed (the inbound facts the draft depends on) · what to verify before sending (times, link, name spelling).
  • Never auto-send. "Human sends" is explicit in the output footer.
  • If intent was reply-accept (offer): add a single line "Suggested next: /coach-negotiation — do not send this draft as an acceptance."

Anti-patterns

  • Auto-CCing anyone (the agent doesn't know who).
  • Multi-question replies for reply-ask.
  • Inventing availability slots not provided by the user.
  • Promising salary numbers in any reply-accept template.
  • Echoing context.career_goal / context.additional_info.
  • Long thank-you preambles for reply-decline.
  • Mismatched salutation formality.
  • Emoji.

Rubric

  • [ ] Subject line is Re: (or the same explicit subject the inbound uses).
  • [ ] Intent template matches the rules above; length ≤ template ceiling.
  • [ ] Dates interpolated correctly; tz mentioned where it matters.
  • [ ] Profile signature used; no extra contact info.
  • [ ] No context: echo.
  • [ ] For reply-accept (offer): draft is an acknowledgement, not an acceptance; coach-negotiation recommended.
  • [ ] "Human sends" footer present.

Next steps

Draft ready — you send it. After sending, /infer-status to advance the status.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.