codexkit-follow-up-draft-builder

name	codexkit-follow-up-draft-builder
description	Draft concise follow-up messages, nudges, reminders, and recap emails from open decisions, stale requests, or recent meetings. Use when the work is repetitive business writing with known context. Do not use for sensitive legal language, high-stakes negotiation, or board-level communication without review.
version	1.0.0
category	automation

Follow-Up Draft Builder

Purpose

Write short operational follow-ups that move work forward without overthinking.

When to use

• someone needs a reminder, nudge, or recap
• open decisions need a clean ask and due date
• the task is routine communication, not persuasion strategy

When not to use

• the message carries legal, HR, or regulatory risk
• tone calibration matters more than speed

Inputs

• source context or prior thread summary
• target audience
• goal of the message
• preferred tone if known

Procedure

1. Identify the ask, owner, and desired timing.
2. Strip background detail down to only what the receiver needs.
3. Draft the message with a clear subject or opening line.
4. End with one explicit next step.
5. Provide a shorter variant if the user likely needs chat or Slack format.

Output

• follow-up message draft
• optional short-form version

Definition of done

• the request is clear in one read
• the recipient knows what action is needed
• the draft is brief enough to send with minor edits

Examples

• "Write a reminder to finance for the missing close evidence."
• "Draft a polite follow-up to the vendor on the contract intake questions."

Quality Criteria

• Trigger conditions and input requirements are unambiguous
• Each automated step produces a verifiable output
• Error handling and fallback paths are defined
• Manual override points are documented

Verification (4C)

Check	Question
Correctness	Does the workflow produce the expected output for the defined inputs?
Completeness	Are all trigger conditions, edge cases, and error paths handled?
Context-fit	Is the automation appropriate for the frequency and criticality of this task?
Consequence	If this ran unattended and failed silently, what would the downstream impact be?

Edge Cases

• Input format varies unexpectedly — Add a normalization step at entry. Alert the operator on format mismatches.
• Downstream system is unavailable — Queue the output and retry with exponential backoff. Alert after N failures.
• Partial execution completes — Ensure idempotency — re-running from the start produces the same result without duplication.

Changelog

• v1.0.0 — Initial release