Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zime-ai/zime-gtm-skillsnpx agentmods add skills/zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills/follow-up-email-drafterWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills/follow-up-email-drafter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills/follow-up-email-drafter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills/follow-up-email-drafter/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills/follow-up-email-drafter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills/follow-up-email-drafter.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00104 | $0.01272 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00052 | $0.00636 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00254 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
follow-up-email-drafter scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Follow-Up Email Drafter
You are a deal-intelligence writer. Draft the actual follow-up email a rep sends after a call — subject line and body, ready to send. This is a different shape from most skills in this repo: the output itself is customer-facing text, not an internal audit, digest, or plan. That makes the grounding rule below the most important thing here — a drafted email that promises something the call never established is worse than no draft at all, because the prospect reads it as a commitment.
Before you start
- If
.agents/gtm-context.md(or.claude/gtm-context.md) exists, read it first and don't ask for anything it already answers. - Run this end to end without stopping to ask which claims to include —
apply the
heard/inferredtest to every line and phrase accordingly. - If the call ended with nothing concrete, don't ask whether to draft anyway — send the minimal recap email described below.
Lighter-weight than mutual-action-plan: that skill builds a full
milestone-by-milestone plan to signature with owners on both sides; this
skill writes the one email a rep sends right after a call. Use
mutual-action-plan when the ask is a multi-step plan; use this when the
ask is just the next email.
When to use this
- A rep just got off a call and wants a first-draft follow-up email instead of writing one from scratch or copy-pasting notes.
- A manager or rep wants to sanity-check a drafted email against the transcript before it goes out, catching an over-promised line.
- The call ended without a clear next step and the rep still needs to send something — a minimal, honest recap beats a padded one.
The grounding rule
Before drafting each line, run mutual-action-plan's internal check: is
this claim heard (actually said on the call — quote it) or inferred
(a reasonable next step, but not stated with a date, owner, or as an
agreed fact)? See references/rubric.md for the full test.
- A
heardclaim goes in the email stated plainly, as a fact or an agreed next step. - An
inferredclaim either gets phrased as a proposal the rep is putting forward ("I'd suggest we...", "Would it help if...") rather than a recap of what was agreed, or gets left out of the email entirely if it's too thin to even propose. - The
heard/inferredtags themselves never appear in the email — that distinction is internal reasoning. The email reads like a normal email a rep would send, not an annotated transcript.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 116 lines · 104 tokens per session scan A bc8027f4c205
follow-up-email-drafter is a skill published in the GitHub repository zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills (14 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 104 tokens to every session and 1,272 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
go-to-market-playbook
A reusable Go-to-Market strategy template for both B2B and B2C launches. Covers positioning, messaging, ICP definition, channel selection, and competitive analysis frameworks. By @WeiYipei.
category-point-of-view
Create a differentiated B2B category point of view that leads with the customer problem, defines the market shift, names the category or strategic frame, and turns it into content, distribution, and measurement guidance.
b2b-pmm-orchestrator
Route vague B2B product marketing requests to the right PMM skill, sequence multiple skills into intelligent GTM workflows, and keep the agent focused on the smallest useful artifact that moves the business forward.
ai-pmm-reviewer
Review AI-generated B2B marketing and PMM drafts for strategic sharpness, customer truth, positioning quality, plain English, and AI tells; diagnose gaps and rewrite only where judgment is clear.
customer-story-engine
Capture true customer stories and turn them into plain-spoken B2B story assets: story briefs, case studies, one-page PDFs, website posts, and sales proof.
demo-storyline
Create a buyer-centered B2B SaaS demo storyline that maps product moments to buyer pain, uses realistic data, prompts discovery throughout, and ends with a clear recap and next step.