Sequence performance

Email campaign/sequence performance review composite.

How to use it

  1. Hit Copy the whole skill.
  2. Claude: ⋯ → Download .md, then Customize → Skills → Add → Upload skill.
    ChatGPT: make a Project and paste it into Instructions.
    Neither? Paste it at the top of a new chat — it works for that chat.
  3. Describe your job in plain words. The AI follows the skill from there.
Claude Code — installs the whole folder, not just SKILL.md
npx degit gooseworks-ai/goose-skills/skills/outreach/composites/sequence-performance#main ~/.claude/skills/sequence-performance

For one project only, change the path to .claude/skills/sequence-performance.

Not working?
  • Check which app you pasted it into — the steps above name the right one.
  • Some skills need the paid tier of Claude or ChatGPT.
Step-by-step guide with screenshots · Ask in the forum

Paste into Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor.

Show the full text367 lines
sequence-performance/SKILL.md367 lines13.0 KBpushed 96d agoRawView on GitHub

Sequence Performance

Goes beyond vanity metrics. Most campaign reports tell you open rate and reply rate. This skill reads the actual emails you sent, reads every reply you received, classifies the responses, evaluates your copy, evaluates your lead quality, and tells you specifically what's working, what's not, and what to do about it.

Three layers of analysis:

  1. Quantitative: The numbers — sends, opens, replies, bounces, conversions, by touch and by variant
  2. Qualitative (Copy): Are the subject lines, email bodies, CTAs, and personalization actually good?
  3. Qualitative (Replies): What are people actually saying? What objections keep coming up?

When to Use

Use this skill when:

  • User says "how's my campaign doing", "sequence performance", "campaign review", "email analytics"
  • User says "analyze my outreach", "why isn't my campaign working", "review my email results"
  • A campaign has been running for 7+ days and has meaningful data

Phase 0: Intake

Outreach Tool

  1. What outreach tool do you use? (Smartlead / Instantly / Outreach.io / Lemlist / Apollo / Other)
  2. How do we access campaign data? (MCP tools / API / CSV export / paste metrics)

Campaign Selection

  1. Which campaign? (name or ID)
  2. Date range? (or "all data")

Your Company Context (for copy evaluation)

  1. What does your company do? (one-liner)
  2. Who is your ICP? (titles, industries, company size)
  3. What problem do you solve?
  4. What's your CTA goal? (book meeting, get reply, drive to page)

Benchmark Context

  1. Is this cold outreach or warm/nurture?
  2. What segment are you selling to? (SMB, mid-market, enterprise)

Step 1: Pull Campaign Data

Pull three categories of data from the user's outreach tool:

A) Campaign Metrics

Data Point What We Need
Total emails sent By touch (Touch 1, Touch 2, Touch 3, etc.)
Total unique recipients Deduplicated count
Opens By touch, unique opens vs. total opens
Replies By touch, total reply count
Bounces Hard bounces + soft bounces
Unsubscribes Count
Clicks If link tracking is on
Positive replies If categorized in the tool
Meetings booked If tracked

How to pull by tool:

Tool Method
Smartlead (MCP) mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_stats, mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_sequence_analytics, mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_variant_statistics
Instantly / Outreach / Lemlist / Apollo Ask user for CSV export or paste metrics
Other User provides CSV with columns: email, status, opened, replied, bounced

B) Email Copy (Sequence Content)

Pull the actual templates for every touch:

Tool Method
Smartlead (MCP) mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_sequences
Others User pastes the copy or provides CSV export

C) Reply Content

Pull the actual text of every reply:

Tool Method
Smartlead (MCP) mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_leads_history, mcp__smartlead__fetch_master_inbox_replies
Others User provides reply dump or CSV export

Human Checkpoint

Campaign: [name]
Status: [active/paused/completed]
Sent: X emails to Y recipients
Replies: Z (full text pulled for analysis)
Touches: N touches, M variants

Data looks complete? (Y/n)

Step 2: Quantitative Analysis

Benchmarks

Metric Cold (SMB) Cold (Mid-Market) Cold (Enterprise) Warm/Nurture
Open rate 40-60% 30-50% 25-40% 50-70%
Reply rate 3-8% 2-5% 1-3% 10-20%
Positive reply rate 1-3% 0.5-2% 0.3-1% 5-10%
Bounce rate <3% <3% <2% <1%
Unsubscribe rate <1% <1% <0.5% <0.5%

Calculate

Overall metrics: open rate, reply rate, positive reply rate, bounce rate, unsubscribe rate, deliverability rate. Compare each to the benchmark.

Per-touch breakdown:

  • Touch-level open/reply rates
  • Marginal reply rate (replies from THIS touch / people who received this touch but hadn't replied yet)
  • Touch contribution (what % of total replies came from each touch)

Variant analysis (if A/B testing):

  • Open rate and reply rate per variant
  • Statistical confidence: <50 sends = "insufficient data", 50-100 = "directional", 100-250 = "likely winner", 250+ = "statistically significant"
  • Winner recommendation: scale, keep testing, or kill

Step 3: Reply Analysis

Read every reply, classify it, and extract patterns.

Reply Categories

Category Definition
Positive interest Wants to learn more, open to a conversation
Meeting request Explicitly asks to meet or provides availability
Warm / Curious Interested but non-committal, asks questions
Objection — Timing Not now, but potentially later
Objection — Budget Can't afford or not a priority
Objection — Competitor Already using a competing solution
Objection — Relevance Doesn't see the fit
Objection — Authority Not the right person
Not interested Flat no
Auto-reply / OOO Automated response
Referral Redirects to someone else
Question Asks about product/offering

Objection Patterns

  • Which objection appears most? (reveals systemic issues)
  • Do objections cluster at Touch 1 (bad targeting) vs. Touch 3 (fatigue)?
  • Which are handleable (timing, authority) vs. terminal (relevance)?
  • What exact language do people use?

Positive Signal Patterns

  • Which touch/variant generated positive replies?
  • What do positive responders have in common? (title, industry, company size)
  • What questions do warm leads ask? (reveals what's missing from the email)

Reply Quality Score

Score Criteria
Strong >50% positive/warm. Objections are handleable.
Mixed 30-50% positive. Mix of handleable and terminal.
Weak <30% positive. Dominated by "not interested" and "not relevant."
Toxic High unsubscribe + angry replies. Something is fundamentally wrong.

Step 4: Copy Quality Assessment

Evaluate the actual email copy against best practices and reply data.

Subject Lines

Criterion Red Flags
Length >60 chars gets truncated on mobile
Specificity Generic "Quick question" or "Checking in"
Spam triggers "Free", "Limited time", ALL CAPS
Open rate correlation Low open rate = subject line problem

Email Body

Criterion Red Flags
Hook (first line) "I'm reaching out because..." or "We are a company that..."
Length Over 150 words
Value prop clarity Jargon, vague language, buzzwords
Proof points No proof = no credibility
Personalization Only {first_name} merge field
CTA Multiple CTAs, high-friction asks, or no CTA
Filler language "Hope this finds you well", "just checking in"
Sequence progression Touch 2 is just a "bump" of Touch 1

Grades

Grade each touch A through F on: hook quality, value prop clarity, proof usage, personalization level, CTA quality.

Step 5: Lead Quality Assessment

Evaluate whether we're sending to the right people.

Targeting Check

  • Do lead titles match ICP buyer/champion/user personas?
  • Are leads in target industries?
  • Right seniority level for the ask?
  • Company size in target range?

Signal Quality (from replies)

Pattern What It Tells You
High "not relevant" replies Sending to people who don't have the problem
High "wrong person" replies Right companies, wrong roles
High "already have a solution" Right problem, late to the party
High "timing" objections Right people, right problem, wrong moment — not a targeting issue
Low reply + high open rate People open but don't find it relevant — copy/targeting mismatch
High bounce rate List quality issue — bad emails, old data

Step 6: Generate Report

Report Structure

# Sequence Performance Review: [Campaign Name]
**Period:** [date range] | **Status:** [active/paused/completed]

---

## Executive Summary

**Overall verdict:** [One sentence]

| Dimension | Grade | Assessment |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| Metrics | [A-F] | [one-liner] |
| Copy Quality | [A-F] | [one-liner] |
| Lead Quality | [A-F] | [one-liner] |
| Reply Quality | [Strong/Mixed/Weak/Toxic] | [one-liner] |

### What's Working (Double Down)
- [Specific thing with data]

### What's Not Working (Fix or Kill)
- [Specific thing with data]

### Top 3 Actions
1. [Highest-impact action]
2. [Second]
3. [Third]

---

## Detailed Metrics

### Overall Performance
| Metric | Actual | Benchmark | Status |
|--------|--------|-----------|--------|
| Open rate | X% | Y% | [above/below] |
| Reply rate | X% | Y% | [above/below] |
| Bounce rate | X% | <3% | [flag] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

### Performance by Touch
| Touch | Sent | Open Rate | Reply Rate | Marginal Reply Rate | % of Total Replies |
|-------|------|-----------|------------|--------------------|--------------------|
| 1 | X | Y% | Z% | Z% | W% |

### Variant Performance (if A/B testing)
| Touch | Variant | Subject | Sent | Open Rate | Reply Rate | Confidence | Action |
|-------|---------|---------|------|-----------|------------|------------|--------|

---

## Reply Deep Dive

### Reply Classification
| Category | Count | % of Replies |
|----------|-------|-------------|

### Top Objections
| Objection | Count | Handleable? | Suggested Response |
|-----------|-------|------------|-------------------|

### Notable Replies
[5-10 most instructive replies with quotes]

---

## Copy Assessment
[Subject line verdicts, body grades, sequence architecture assessment]

---

## Lead Quality
[Targeting assessment, actual vs intended ICP]

---

## Recommendations (Prioritized)

### High Priority (Do This Week)
1. **[Action]** — [data point] → [expected impact]

### Medium Priority (Do This Month)
2. **[Action]** — [data point] → [expected impact]

### Kill List
- [Anything that should be stopped]

Recommendation Logic

Finding Recommendation
Open rate below benchmark Subject line rewrite — suggest 3 alternatives
Reply rate below + open rate fine Body copy issue — focus on hook, proof, CTA
Both below benchmark Full sequence rewrite
High "not relevant" objections Targeting issue — tighten ICP filters
High "wrong person" referrals Title targeting issue — shift to referred titles
High "already have solution" Add competitive differentiation to copy
High "timing" objections Not a problem — set up 90-day re-engagement
One variant clearly winning Scale winner, test new idea in losing slot
Touch 2/3 near-zero marginal replies Cut sequence short or rewrite with new angles
High bounce rate List hygiene — verify emails, check data source
Deliverability <95% Infrastructure — check SPF/DKIM/DMARC, reduce volume

Human Checkpoint

Present the executive summary, then ask:

Full detailed report available. Want to see the full breakdown, or act on a specific recommendation?

Adapting to Data Availability

Missing Data What Gets Skipped Still Useful?
Reply text Reply classification + objection patterns Partially — metrics + copy still run
Variant data Variant analysis Yes — single-variant analysis still runs
Lead demographics Targeting assessment Yes — infers from reply patterns
Open tracking Open rate analysis Partially — reply rate + copy still run

Minimum viable data: Emails sent + reply count + email copy text.

Cost

Free. Pure reasoning + data from user's outreach tool.

Tips

  • Run at Day 7 and Day 14. Day 7 catches deliverability and subject line problems. Day 14 gives enough replies for objection analysis.
  • Reply analysis is where the gold is. Metrics tell you WHAT. Replies tell you WHY.
  • High open + low reply = copy problem. The subject gets them to open but the email doesn't deliver.
  • Low open + decent reply rate = subject line problem. The email works, people just aren't seeing it.
  • "Not relevant" is the most important objection. If >20% say "this isn't for me," it's targeting, not copy.
  • Don't kill a variant too early. Need 100+ sends per variant for directional data.
  • Touch 2/3 should contribute 30-40% of replies. If Touch 1 is 90%+, your follow-ups aren't adding value.
1---
2name: sequence-performance
3version: 1.0.0
4description: >
5 Email campaign/sequence performance review composite. Pulls campaign data
6 (sends, opens, replies, bounces), reads actual email copy and subject lines,
7 analyzes reply content (objections, positive interest, questions), and produces
8 a diagnostic report covering quantitative metrics, copy quality, lead quality,
9 and actionable recommendations. Tool-agnostic — works with Smartlead (MCP),
10 Instantly, Outreach, Lemlist, Apollo, or CSV data.
11tags: [research]
12---
13 
14# Sequence Performance
15 
16Goes beyond vanity metrics. Most campaign reports tell you open rate and reply rate. This skill reads the actual emails you sent, reads every reply you received, classifies the responses, evaluates your copy, evaluates your lead quality, and tells you specifically what's working, what's not, and what to do about it.
17 
18**Three layers of analysis:**
191. **Quantitative:** The numbers — sends, opens, replies, bounces, conversions, by touch and by variant
202. **Qualitative (Copy):** Are the subject lines, email bodies, CTAs, and personalization actually good?
213. **Qualitative (Replies):** What are people actually saying? What objections keep coming up?
22 
23## When to Use
24 
25Use this skill when:
26- User says "how's my campaign doing", "sequence performance", "campaign review", "email analytics"
27- User says "analyze my outreach", "why isn't my campaign working", "review my email results"
28- A campaign has been running for 7+ days and has meaningful data
29 
30## Phase 0: Intake
31 
32### Outreach Tool
331. What outreach tool do you use? (Smartlead / Instantly / Outreach.io / Lemlist / Apollo / Other)
342. How do we access campaign data? (MCP tools / API / CSV export / paste metrics)
35 
36### Campaign Selection
373. Which campaign? (name or ID)
384. Date range? (or "all data")
39 
40### Your Company Context (for copy evaluation)
415. What does your company do? (one-liner)
426. Who is your ICP? (titles, industries, company size)
437. What problem do you solve?
448. What's your CTA goal? (book meeting, get reply, drive to page)
45 
46### Benchmark Context
479. Is this cold outreach or warm/nurture?
4810. What segment are you selling to? (SMB, mid-market, enterprise)
49 
50## Step 1: Pull Campaign Data
51 
52Pull three categories of data from the user's outreach tool:
53 
54### A) Campaign Metrics
55 
56| Data Point | What We Need |
57|-----------|-------------|
58| Total emails sent | By touch (Touch 1, Touch 2, Touch 3, etc.) |
59| Total unique recipients | Deduplicated count |
60| Opens | By touch, unique opens vs. total opens |
61| Replies | By touch, total reply count |
62| Bounces | Hard bounces + soft bounces |
63| Unsubscribes | Count |
64| Clicks | If link tracking is on |
65| Positive replies | If categorized in the tool |
66| Meetings booked | If tracked |
67 
68**How to pull by tool:**
69 
70| Tool | Method |
71|------|--------|
72| **Smartlead** (MCP) | `mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_stats`, `mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_sequence_analytics`, `mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_variant_statistics` |
73| **Instantly / Outreach / Lemlist / Apollo** | Ask user for CSV export or paste metrics |
74| **Other** | User provides CSV with columns: email, status, opened, replied, bounced |
75 
76### B) Email Copy (Sequence Content)
77 
78Pull the actual templates for every touch:
79 
80| Tool | Method |
81|------|--------|
82| **Smartlead** (MCP) | `mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_sequences` |
83| **Others** | User pastes the copy or provides CSV export |
84 
85### C) Reply Content
86 
87Pull the actual text of every reply:
88 
89| Tool | Method |
90|------|--------|
91| **Smartlead** (MCP) | `mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_leads_history`, `mcp__smartlead__fetch_master_inbox_replies` |
92| **Others** | User provides reply dump or CSV export |
93 
94### Human Checkpoint
95 
96```
97Campaign: [name]
98Status: [active/paused/completed]
99Sent: X emails to Y recipients
100Replies: Z (full text pulled for analysis)
101Touches: N touches, M variants
102 
103Data looks complete? (Y/n)
104```
105 
106## Step 2: Quantitative Analysis
107 
108### Benchmarks
109 
110| Metric | Cold (SMB) | Cold (Mid-Market) | Cold (Enterprise) | Warm/Nurture |
111|--------|-----------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------|
112| Open rate | 40-60% | 30-50% | 25-40% | 50-70% |
113| Reply rate | 3-8% | 2-5% | 1-3% | 10-20% |
114| Positive reply rate | 1-3% | 0.5-2% | 0.3-1% | 5-10% |
115| Bounce rate | <3% | <3% | <2% | <1% |
116| Unsubscribe rate | <1% | <1% | <0.5% | <0.5% |
117 
118### Calculate
119 
120**Overall metrics:** open rate, reply rate, positive reply rate, bounce rate, unsubscribe rate, deliverability rate. Compare each to the benchmark.
121 
122**Per-touch breakdown:**
123- Touch-level open/reply rates
124- Marginal reply rate (replies from THIS touch / people who received this touch but hadn't replied yet)
125- Touch contribution (what % of total replies came from each touch)
126 
127**Variant analysis (if A/B testing):**
128- Open rate and reply rate per variant
129- Statistical confidence: <50 sends = "insufficient data", 50-100 = "directional", 100-250 = "likely winner", 250+ = "statistically significant"
130- Winner recommendation: scale, keep testing, or kill
131 
132## Step 3: Reply Analysis
133 
134Read every reply, classify it, and extract patterns.
135 
136### Reply Categories
137 
138| Category | Definition |
139|----------|-----------|
140| **Positive interest** | Wants to learn more, open to a conversation |
141| **Meeting request** | Explicitly asks to meet or provides availability |
142| **Warm / Curious** | Interested but non-committal, asks questions |
143| **Objection — Timing** | Not now, but potentially later |
144| **Objection — Budget** | Can't afford or not a priority |
145| **Objection — Competitor** | Already using a competing solution |
146| **Objection — Relevance** | Doesn't see the fit |
147| **Objection — Authority** | Not the right person |
148| **Not interested** | Flat no |
149| **Auto-reply / OOO** | Automated response |
150| **Referral** | Redirects to someone else |
151| **Question** | Asks about product/offering |
152 
153### Objection Patterns
154 
155- Which objection appears most? (reveals systemic issues)
156- Do objections cluster at Touch 1 (bad targeting) vs. Touch 3 (fatigue)?
157- Which are handleable (timing, authority) vs. terminal (relevance)?
158- What exact language do people use?
159 
160### Positive Signal Patterns
161 
162- Which touch/variant generated positive replies?
163- What do positive responders have in common? (title, industry, company size)
164- What questions do warm leads ask? (reveals what's missing from the email)
165 
166### Reply Quality Score
167 
168| Score | Criteria |
169|-------|---------|
170| **Strong** | >50% positive/warm. Objections are handleable. |
171| **Mixed** | 30-50% positive. Mix of handleable and terminal. |
172| **Weak** | <30% positive. Dominated by "not interested" and "not relevant." |
173| **Toxic** | High unsubscribe + angry replies. Something is fundamentally wrong. |
174 
175## Step 4: Copy Quality Assessment
176 
177Evaluate the actual email copy against best practices and reply data.
178 
179### Subject Lines
180 
181| Criterion | Red Flags |
182|-----------|-----------|
183| Length | >60 chars gets truncated on mobile |
184| Specificity | Generic "Quick question" or "Checking in" |
185| Spam triggers | "Free", "Limited time", ALL CAPS |
186| Open rate correlation | Low open rate = subject line problem |
187 
188### Email Body
189 
190| Criterion | Red Flags |
191|-----------|-----------|
192| Hook (first line) | "I'm reaching out because..." or "We are a company that..." |
193| Length | Over 150 words |
194| Value prop clarity | Jargon, vague language, buzzwords |
195| Proof points | No proof = no credibility |
196| Personalization | Only `{first_name}` merge field |
197| CTA | Multiple CTAs, high-friction asks, or no CTA |
198| Filler language | "Hope this finds you well", "just checking in" |
199| Sequence progression | Touch 2 is just a "bump" of Touch 1 |
200 
201### Grades
202 
203Grade each touch A through F on: hook quality, value prop clarity, proof usage, personalization level, CTA quality.
204 
205## Step 5: Lead Quality Assessment
206 
207Evaluate whether we're sending to the right people.
208 
209### Targeting Check
210 
211- Do lead titles match ICP buyer/champion/user personas?
212- Are leads in target industries?
213- Right seniority level for the ask?
214- Company size in target range?
215 
216### Signal Quality (from replies)
217 
218| Pattern | What It Tells You |
219|---------|------------------|
220| High "not relevant" replies | Sending to people who don't have the problem |
221| High "wrong person" replies | Right companies, wrong roles |
222| High "already have a solution" | Right problem, late to the party |
223| High "timing" objections | Right people, right problem, wrong moment — not a targeting issue |
224| Low reply + high open rate | People open but don't find it relevant — copy/targeting mismatch |
225| High bounce rate | List quality issue — bad emails, old data |
226 
227## Step 6: Generate Report
228 
229### Report Structure
230 
231```
232# Sequence Performance Review: [Campaign Name]
233**Period:** [date range] | **Status:** [active/paused/completed]
234 
235---
236 
237## Executive Summary
238 
239**Overall verdict:** [One sentence]
240 
241| Dimension | Grade | Assessment |
242|-----------|-------|-----------|
243| Metrics | [A-F] | [one-liner] |
244| Copy Quality | [A-F] | [one-liner] |
245| Lead Quality | [A-F] | [one-liner] |
246| Reply Quality | [Strong/Mixed/Weak/Toxic] | [one-liner] |
247 
248### What's Working (Double Down)
249- [Specific thing with data]
250 
251### What's Not Working (Fix or Kill)
252- [Specific thing with data]
253 
254### Top 3 Actions
2551. [Highest-impact action]
2562. [Second]
2573. [Third]
258 
259---
260 
261## Detailed Metrics
262 
263### Overall Performance
264| Metric | Actual | Benchmark | Status |
265|--------|--------|-----------|--------|
266| Open rate | X% | Y% | [above/below] |
267| Reply rate | X% | Y% | [above/below] |
268| Bounce rate | X% | <3% | [flag] |
269| ... | ... | ... | ... |
270 
271### Performance by Touch
272| Touch | Sent | Open Rate | Reply Rate | Marginal Reply Rate | % of Total Replies |
273|-------|------|-----------|------------|--------------------|--------------------|
274| 1 | X | Y% | Z% | Z% | W% |
275 
276### Variant Performance (if A/B testing)
277| Touch | Variant | Subject | Sent | Open Rate | Reply Rate | Confidence | Action |
278|-------|---------|---------|------|-----------|------------|------------|--------|
279 
280---
281 
282## Reply Deep Dive
283 
284### Reply Classification
285| Category | Count | % of Replies |
286|----------|-------|-------------|
287 
288### Top Objections
289| Objection | Count | Handleable? | Suggested Response |
290|-----------|-------|------------|-------------------|
291 
292### Notable Replies
293[5-10 most instructive replies with quotes]
294 
295---
296 
297## Copy Assessment
298[Subject line verdicts, body grades, sequence architecture assessment]
299 
300---
301 
302## Lead Quality
303[Targeting assessment, actual vs intended ICP]
304 
305---
306 
307## Recommendations (Prioritized)
308 
309### High Priority (Do This Week)
3101. **[Action]** — [data point] → [expected impact]
311 
312### Medium Priority (Do This Month)
3132. **[Action]** — [data point] → [expected impact]
314 
315### Kill List
316- [Anything that should be stopped]
317```
318 
319### Recommendation Logic
320 
321| Finding | Recommendation |
322|---------|---------------|
323| Open rate below benchmark | Subject line rewrite — suggest 3 alternatives |
324| Reply rate below + open rate fine | Body copy issue — focus on hook, proof, CTA |
325| Both below benchmark | Full sequence rewrite |
326| High "not relevant" objections | Targeting issue — tighten ICP filters |
327| High "wrong person" referrals | Title targeting issue — shift to referred titles |
328| High "already have solution" | Add competitive differentiation to copy |
329| High "timing" objections | Not a problem — set up 90-day re-engagement |
330| One variant clearly winning | Scale winner, test new idea in losing slot |
331| Touch 2/3 near-zero marginal replies | Cut sequence short or rewrite with new angles |
332| High bounce rate | List hygiene — verify emails, check data source |
333| Deliverability <95% | Infrastructure — check SPF/DKIM/DMARC, reduce volume |
334 
335### Human Checkpoint
336 
337Present the executive summary, then ask:
338 
339```
340Full detailed report available. Want to see the full breakdown, or act on a specific recommendation?
341```
342 
343## Adapting to Data Availability
344 
345| Missing Data | What Gets Skipped | Still Useful? |
346|-------------|-------------------|--------------|
347| Reply text | Reply classification + objection patterns | Partially — metrics + copy still run |
348| Variant data | Variant analysis | Yes — single-variant analysis still runs |
349| Lead demographics | Targeting assessment | Yes — infers from reply patterns |
350| Open tracking | Open rate analysis | Partially — reply rate + copy still run |
351 
352**Minimum viable data:** Emails sent + reply count + email copy text.
353 
354## Cost
355 
356Free. Pure reasoning + data from user's outreach tool.
357 
358## Tips
359 
360- **Run at Day 7 and Day 14.** Day 7 catches deliverability and subject line problems. Day 14 gives enough replies for objection analysis.
361- **Reply analysis is where the gold is.** Metrics tell you WHAT. Replies tell you WHY.
362- **High open + low reply = copy problem.** The subject gets them to open but the email doesn't deliver.
363- **Low open + decent reply rate = subject line problem.** The email works, people just aren't seeing it.
364- **"Not relevant" is the most important objection.** If >20% say "this isn't for me," it's targeting, not copy.
365- **Don't kill a variant too early.** Need 100+ sends per variant for directional data.
366- **Touch 2/3 should contribute 30-40% of replies.** If Touch 1 is 90%+, your follow-ups aren't adding value.
367 

Discussion

Alternatives

Also in Monitoring
Professional Full-Stack Developer for Network Mapping & Monitoring ApplicationAct as a professional full-stack developer tasked with building a web application for mapping and monitoring networks using Mikrotik Netwatch API. Implement multi-user role-based management to handle devices, monitor their status, and manage user subscriptions.Coding · CC0-1.0Prompt refinerHigh-end Prompt Engineering & Prompt Refiner skill. Transforms raw or messy user requests into concise, token-efficient, high-performance master prompts for systems like GPT, Claude, and Gemini. Use when you want to optimize or redesign a prompt so it solves the problem reliably while minimizing tokens.Data & AI · CC0-1.0Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic ModellingPharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modelling and simulation - non-compartmental analysis, compartmental and population PK, PK/PD and exposure-response, TMDD, PBPK orientation, bioequivalence, allometric scaling and first-in-human dose, drug interaction prediction, and Bayesian therapeutic drug monitoring. Use when analysing concentration-time data, deriving exposure metrics, fitting PK or PD models, or evaluating dosing regimens. Triggers include "pharmacokinetics", "pharmacodynamics", "PK/PD", "NCA", "non-compartmental", "AUC", "Cmax", "lambda z", "half-life", "clearance", "volume of distribution", "compartmental model", "population PK", "popPK", "NONMEM", "nlmixr2", "Pharmpy", "Monolix", "exposure-response", "Emax", "EC50", "indirect response", "effect compartment", "TMDD", "PBPK", "bioequivalence", "RSABE", "ABEL", "allometric scaling", "first-in-human", "MABEL", "drug-drug interaction", "DDI", "ICH M12", "concentration-QTc", "therapeutic drug monitoring", "MIPD", and "dosing regimen".Science · MITDistributed tracingImplement distributed tracing with Jaeger and Tempo to track requests across microservices and identify performance bottlenecks. Use when debugging microservices, analyzing request flows, or implementing observability for distributed systems.Infrastructure & ops · MIT