--- description: "Fact-check a drafted outreach email, or a folder of them, against the research files it was written from and write an annotated report with a claims table, without editing the draft." argument-hint: "[draft path or pasted email] [research path]" allowed-tools: "Read, Glob, Write" --- Run the [outreach-claim-checker](/skills/sales/outreach-claim-checker) procedure over drafts on disk and get a report you can hand back to whoever wrote them. Every claim about the prospect is traced to a line in the research, or it is not claimed. The command reads and writes a report; it never edits a draft, so it is safe to point at a folder someone else owns. ## Scope Interpret `$ARGUMENTS` in this order: 1. **One path to a file** — that is the draft. Look for research beside it (see Step 1). 2. **One path to a directory** — `Glob` `*.md`, `*.txt`, and `*.eml` inside it; every match is a draft, checked as one batch. 3. **Two paths** — the first is the draft or draft folder, the second is the research file or folder. 4. **Pasted text with no path** — treat the pasted block as a single draft and ask, once, for the research it came from. If the answer is "none", proceed: the result will be an all-unsourced HOLD, which is the correct finding. 5. **Empty** — ask "Which draft should I check, and where is the research?" and stop. Do not pick a file from the project. If `Read` fails on a path, report it and continue with the rest. Never substitute a similarly named file. > [!NOTE] > This command checks claims against files you supply. It does not browse and it must not fill a gap from the model's own memory — an unsupported claim is unsourced even when it happens to be true. It also does not judge the writing: tone, structure, and subject lines are out of scope. ## Step 1 — Assemble the inputs Number the drafts D1, D2, ... in the order globbed. For research, use the second path if given; otherwise `Glob` beside the drafts for `research*`, `notes*`, `*-research.md`, `sources*`, and `account-*.md`. `Read` each match, number them S1, S2, ..., and record what each is and its date — from frontmatter, a dated heading, or the filename. Print the input list before checking anything, so the reader can see what the verdicts are based on. ## Step 2 — Extract the claims For each draft, list every checkable assertion, quoted verbatim, and type it: company fact, person fact, technographic, event, relationship, own-product, or inference. Pleasantries, questions, opinions, and calls to action are not claims. An inference is recorded but only inherits the status of the fact under it. ## Step 3 — Confirm the entity Before checking any fact, confirm each source is about the company and person the draft names — matching domain, not just a matching name. An entity mismatch invalidates every claim drawn from that source; record it once, then re-check the draft against what remains. ## Step 4 — Mark every claim First rule that matches wins: - **Contradicted** — a source says otherwise, or two sources disagree with no clear newer authority. - **Sourced** — a specific line in a specific source states it; record `S` and quote the line. - **Stale** — sourced, but the source is older than 12 months for funding, headcount, revenue or ownership; 6 months for a title or a tech stack; 90 days for anything the draft calls recent. - **Unsourced** — everything else. ## Step 5 — Produce the corrected draft Cut unsourced specifics rather than softening them. Narrow a claim only where a source supports the weaker version. Add the hedge the source supports to a stale claim, or cut it. Repair the seams so the email still reads as one message, and say when a draft has nothing personalized left. ## Step 6 — Verdict and report Per draft: **HOLD** for any contradicted claim, any unsourced relationship claim, or any unsourced person fact; **FIX** if unsourced or stale claims remain; **SEND** if every remaining claim is sourced and fresh. `Write` the report to `outreach-check-.md` in the drafts' directory (or the working directory for pasted text), containing: the input list, the claims table, the corrected drafts with cuts marked, the verdicts, the lookups that would close the remaining gaps, and the batch summary — claim count, share sourced, dominant failure type, and any source that produced more than one contradiction. Print the verdict line and the batch summary in the reply; leave the detail in the file. ## Output A written report plus a short reply: one verdict line per draft and the batch summary. If a single source is behind most of the failures, say which and how old it is — that is usually one broken research step, not a batch of careless writing. Deliverability is the other half of the send: [cold-email-deliverability-auditor](/skills/sales/cold-email-deliverability-auditor) audits the domain, list, and message that carry these drafts. The workflow that produces the drafts and the research together is [Research prospects with Claude](/guides/sales/research-prospects-with-claude); [/audit-crm](/commands/sales/audit-crm) is the companion command for the data underneath. The whole set is in [Claude skills for sales](/guides/sales/claude-skills-for-sales), and [Claude for sales teams](/guides/sales/claude-for-sales-teams) covers where it fits. --- _Source: https://agentscamp.com/commands/sales/check-outreach — Command on AgentsCamp._