Child skill for classifying cold outreach replies into a 12-class taxonomy, routing objections through a 7-route table, reviving silence with numbered forks, and answering within SLA so trust is preserved after a recipient responds or goes quiet.
Child skill for classifying cold outreach replies into a 12-class taxonomy, routing objections through a 7-route table, reviving silence with numbered forks, and answering within SLA so trust is preserved after a recipient responds or goes quiet.
[{"id":"cold_email_reply_os.objection_routes","name":"Objection Route Table","summary":"7-objection route table with labels and calibrated questions, Gong 7-step async adaptation, and the objection-bank template structure (acknowledge -> label -> one contrast/artifact -> smallest calibrated question).","when_to_load":["When the reply is an objection, skepticism, competitor-chosen, or a send-info brushoff."],"path":"references/objection-route-table.md","visibility":"internal"},{"id":"cold_email_reply_os.fork_library","name":"Numbered Fork Library","summary":"Three named forks (qualification, ghosted-thread, Hail Mary) with full text, fork discipline rules, and silence-revival cadence by mode.","when_to_load":["When silence revival or a numbered fork is the chosen move (workflow steps 2, 7)."],"path":"references/numbered-fork-library.md","visibility":"internal"},{"id":"cold_email_reply_os.tactical_empathy_routes","name":"Tactical Empathy Routes","summary":"Route table and label -> calibrated question patterns for objections, silence, skepticism, angry replies, and ambiguous replies.","when_to_load":["When a reply is skeptical, tense, ambiguous, negative, silent, or objection-heavy and you need label and question phrasing."],"path":"references/tactical-empathy-routes.md","visibility":"internal"}]
Use this child skill after sending, when a reply arrives, a thread goes quiet, or objections need routing. The discipline this skill enforces is classify first: every reply gets a taxonomy class before any draft, route, or fork. A route without a taxonomy class is not a route. Replies are scarce trust signals — the north star is qualified conversations started per unit of market trust consumed.
This is a strategy skill at domain altitude, a child under cold_email_engagement_first_outreach. It decides how to classify and route each reply rather than running a fixed runbook: the 12-class taxonomy and SLA data it reasons over are the unconditional lookup grounding in Knowledge, while the conditional route/fork/empathy phrasing loads from its reference modules.
Activation
The user has a reply and needs the next response
The prospect went silent after interest
The user needs objection handling
The user wants a low-friction numbered fork
The user needs reply-to-call handling without pressure
Judgment
The goal of the email is a response. The goal of reply handling is to preserve momentum without forcing the wrong next step. Replies are scarce trust signals — route them the same day. Silence is the only dead state.
Classify before you draft anything. A route without a taxonomy class is not a route.
Same-Day Routing
For high-intent replies:
Alert the sender immediately.
Enrich account context and phone only if allowed.
Reply while intent is fresh.
If a call is appropriate, offer 2-3 specific times.
Keep the artifact promise before pushing the meeting.
Do not leave high-intent replies in the inbox overnight when the campaign depends on booked calls.
Reply-to-Call
Use when the buyer has shown clear interest and the sales motion supports calls.
Safe frame:
Makes sense. I can send the snapshot first.
If it looks relevant, I have [time 1] or [time 2] open tomorrow to walk through what I found.
Avoid:
Pushing a call after a weak reply.
Calling without context in sensitive markets.
Using "my assistant told me" unless that sender model is real and approved.
After Verbal Interest
Once someone agrees to a meeting, follow up until it is booked or they decline.
Good follow-up assets:
The promised artifact.
Short relevant proof.
A concrete agenda.
Two specific time options.
Avoid generic "checking in."
Angry Or Opt-Out Replies
Use a short dignified close:
Understood. I will not follow up.
Do not defend, debate, explain intent, or ask one more question after an opt-out. Suppress the address.
Procedure
Classify the reply. Assign exactly one of the 12 classes from the detection cues in Knowledge → Reply Taxonomy (12 classes) below. If ambiguous (class 12), the only move is one calibrated question — do not assume intent.
Route by class. Objection, skeptical, competitor-chosen, or send-info-brushoff → load cold_email_reply_os.objection_routes and pick the matching route row. Silence or revival → load cold_email_reply_os.fork_library and pick one of the three named forks. For label and calibrated-question phrasing on tense or ambiguous replies, load cold_email_reply_os.tactical_empathy_routes.
Preserve the original promise. If they asked for info, send the artifact, not a brochure.
Draft the response in the response shape: one label, one answer or artifact, one calibrated question or next step. Never two CTAs.
Set owner and first-response SLA from Knowledge → SLA Matrix below; flag same-day classes (yes/interested, send info, angry/opt-out) explicitly.
Handle special handoffs: a left-company auto-reply fires the trigger workflow → cold_email_icp_signal_design (see Routing); an opt-out suppresses the address immediately.
If silent after meaningful time, use one respectful numbered fork → cold_email_reply_os.fork_library — one fork per thread, ever — and set the revival cadence by mode from the fork library.
Log the exchange: class, route, objection language verbatim → cold_email_learning_review (buyer language feeds the learning review).
Routing
Who owns what when this skill hands off. Reply handling stays inside this skill; two branches escalate to sibling skills, and the conditional phrasing loads from this skill's own reference modules.
Trigger (Procedure step)
Intent (what)
Owner (who)
Left-company auto-reply (step 6)
Fire the trigger workflow; treat both trigger events
cold_email_icp_signal_design
Buyer-language log (step 8)
Objection language verbatim feeds the learning loop
A "left company" auto-reply is not a dead address — it is two trigger events (Elias): the departed person is landing somewhere new with fresh budget and old pain, and the old seat has a successor in their decision window. Hand both to cold_email_icp_signal_design as trigger-event inputs; do not handle them inside the reply thread.
Contract
Reply class (one of the 12, named)
Intent level
Chosen route or fork (named row/fork from the loaded reference)
Response draft (label + answer/artifact + one next step)
Artifact to send, if promised
Owner and SLA note (who responds, by when)
Stop or follow-up rule (cadence by mode, or suppression)
Buyer-language log line for the learning review
Policy
Do not respond without classifying first; a route without a taxonomy class is not a route.
Honor a no.
Do not guilt, pressure, or insult the recipient.
Do not push a call after weak interest.
Do not call without context in sensitive markets.
Do not leave high-intent replies overnight when the motion depends on calls.
Do not debate angry replies or continue after opt-out.
Never ask "why" in an objection reply — what/how questions only.
One fork per thread, ever.
Do not counter-pitch a competitor-chosen reply; run the Hail Mary learning move instead.
Do not cite list-email stats (e.g. Hormozi speed-to-contact) as cold-email SLA facts.
Knowledge
Reply Taxonomy (12 classes)
#
Class
Detection cues
Intent
1
Yes / interested
"send it," "tell me more," asks a question about the offer
High
2
Send info
"send me something," "what's the pricing"
Medium-high
3
Numbered response
replies "1"/"2"/"3" to a fork
Per option
4
Not now / timing
"next quarter," "after [event]"
Medium (timeline data — Moesta)
5
Already solved / competitor
names incumbent or "we're covered"
Low-medium (objection-discovery value — Close Hail Mary)
6
Objection (budget / priority / risk / switching)
substantive pushback
Medium
7
Skeptical
"does this actually…," challenge to claim
Medium (serious buyers get critical — Gong: negative sentiment increases toward purchase)
8
Wrong person / referral
"talk to X," "not my area"
Routing value (Elias: a referral target is warmer than a cold name)
9
Compliment-no-action
"great email!" with no movement
Weak evidence (Mom Test: tag compliments weak)
10
Angry / opt-out
"stop emailing me," unsubscribe
Stop
11
Auto-reply / OOO / left-company
bounce text
"Left company" = trigger event for the ICP child (Elias bounce surface)
12
Ambiguous
unclassifiable one-liner
Ask one calibrated question; do not assume
SLA Matrix
Speed rationale: replies are scarce trust signals; route same day. Do not leave high-intent replies overnight when the motion depends on calls. Do-not-import note: Hormozi's 391% speed-to-contact stat is inbound list-email territory — never cite it as a cold-email SLA fact.
Reply class
Owner
First response SLA
Notes
Yes / interested, numbered 1
Sender (human)
Same business day; within 1–2h if call motion
Keep artifact promise before any meeting push
Send info
Sender or assistant
Same business day
Send the promised artifact, never a brochure
Objection / skeptical
Sender (human — judgment required)
Within 1 business day
Use the objection route table (load cold_email_reply_os.objection_routes)
Wrong person / referral
Sender
Within 1 business day
Thank, ask routing question, log new contact
Not now
Sender
Within 2 business days
Ask permission for a specific future touch; calendar it (Close follow-up guide: "I'll put that in my calendar and ping them in 14 days")
Angry / opt-out
Sender
Same day
Two lines max, confirm stop, suppress address
Left-company auto-reply
System → ICP child
n/a
Fire trigger workflow (Elias)
Ambiguous
Sender
1 business day
One calibrated question only
Compliment-no-action (class 9) and OOO auto-replies carry no SLA: tag the compliment as weak evidence and move on; resume cadence after an OOO return date.
Examples
Condensed from a full classify-and-respond run on a "send me some info" reply to a strategic first touch; the input thread is in evals.md Task 1. Match this shape: class before draft, route row named, one CTA, log line at the end.
Input: First touch (strategic, 8 hand-picked accounts) offered Dana, VP RevOps, a 2-page pipeline-review teardown ("Want me to send the Meridian-relevant version?"). Her reply: "Thanks Alex. Sounds interesting — send me some info and I'll take a look when I get a chance." The sender's instinct: send the company deck and ask if she's free Thursday or Friday for a call.
1. Classification (before any draft): Class 2 — Send info ("send me some info" is the detection cue). Intent: medium-high. Not class 1 (yes/interested) — "when I get a chance" is deferral language, so handle it as the send-me-info-as-brushoff pattern from the objection route table. A route without a taxonomy class is not a route; the class came first.
2. Owner + SLA: Sender or assistant, same business day — send-info is a same-day class. Reply while the thread is warm.
3. Route (objection route table, brushoff row): No label needed. Send the real artifact + one-line fork: active vs. polite-no. Two corrections to the sender's plan, by rule:
Deck refused — artifact, not brochure. The email promised the Meridian-relevant 2-page teardown. Send exactly that; substituting a company deck breaks the original promise ("send the promised artifact, never a brochure").
Call ask refused. "Free Thursday or Friday?" is a call push after weak interest — guardrail violation. Reply-to-call is reserved for clear interest. It would also make two CTAs; never two CTAs.
4. Response draft (artifact + one calibrated question, what/how only, never "why"):
Here it is — the 2-page teardown, with the Meridian pod-structure notes on page 2.
No deck and no drip sequence behind this. One question so I don't clutter your
inbox: should I close the loop after this, or is the noisy-pipeline-review
problem still live this quarter?
— Alex
The question is the route row's active-vs-polite-no fork: either answer is useful, and "close the loop" gives her a dignified no.
5. Stop / follow-up rule: If silence follows the artifact, strategic cadence allows up to 4 touches over ~7–8 days, then stop. The ghosted-thread numbered fork stays in reserve — one fork per thread, ever — so it is not spent here while the thread is live.
6. Buyer-language log (for cold_email_learning_review): class 2 send-info-brushoff · route: artifact + active-vs-polite-no fork · verbatim: "Sounds interesting — send me some info and I'll take a look when I get a chance." — deferral phrasing, no named pain; grade as weak evidence until behavior follows.
Output contract check: class ✓ intent ✓ route row named ✓ draft ✓ artifact ✓ owner/SLA ✓ stop rule ✓ log line ✓.
Provenance
The reply taxonomy and SLA material is inline in this shell (the Knowledge block) because classification is unconditional — every use of this skill starts there. Only the conditional material (objection routes, numbered forks, tactical-empathy phrasing) lives in references/.
Sources for the inline taxonomy/SLA sections: Close/Steli Efti [practitioner] (reply forks, follow-up calendar discipline), Mailshake State of Cold Email 2025 [PRIMARY] / Michael Hanson [practitioner] ("If a lead replies to a cold email, typically the answer won't be 'let's have a meeting.' It may be 'we're using a competitor' or 'speak to X person.'"), Gong [practitioner] (skeptical buyers are serious buyers — negative sentiment increases toward purchase), Craig Elias [practitioner] (trigger-event selling — referrals and left-company bounces are warm surface area), Mom Test/Fitzpatrick [practitioner] (compliments are weak evidence).
Sources named inline in the references: Steli Efti/Close [practitioner] (forks, follow-up calendar), Gong [practitioner] (objection process, skeptic-signal data), Black Swan Group [practitioner] (labels, calibrated questions), Connor Murray [practitioner] (objection bank, cadence), Craig Elias [practitioner] (trigger events), Austin Schneider [practitioner] (volume touch decay). Async objection adaptations of call-era sources are flagged as derivation inside the modules.
Maintainers: enrichment lineage lives at docs/research/youtube-library/cold-email-children-enrichment-plan-2026-06-10.md and the draft references at docs/research/youtube-library/skill-drafts/cold-email-engagement-first-outreach/references/ (not available at runtime).
