agentsclimarketplace

Connection finder

Skill kalyvask/winning-writing/skills/connection-finder

Agentic writting toolkit built from Glenn Kramon's Winning Writing at Stanford GSB and Rachel Konrad's cold-outreach guest lectures. 31 Claude skills, a browser Coach with span-level inline critic and refinement chat, plus a Chrome MV3 extension that runs the same critic in the Gmail side panel.

Install
npx -y skills add kalyvask/winning-writing --skill connection-finder

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 9 stars9 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Finds specific, genuine "like you" hooks between the writer and a cold-outreach target — the bridges that turn a generic email into one that feels hand-written. Takes the recipient dossier and the writer's profile (about-me.md) and surfaces ranked angles. Use after recipient-research is done, before drafting. Triggers on "like you," "find a connection," "what do we have in common," "common ground."

SKILL.md

5.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Connection finder

Source: points/cold-email-rules.md rule 5 — "Compare yourself to the recipient — the 'like you' move."

Why this exists

Rachel Konrad's rule 5 is the most-failed rule in the playbook. Most "like you" lines are either:

  • Generic"Like you, I believe AI will transform the future." (Everyone believes that. Cut.)
  • Self-diminishing"Like you, but at a vastly smaller scale." (They already know that. Cut.)
  • Boastful"Like you, I'm super smart and super successful." (Backfires. Cut.)

What works: specific, genuine, slightly unexpected. A "like you" line should reference a sensory detail from your shared origin that cannot be sent to anyone else — a specific cuisine you both grew up with, a specific city you both lived in for a specific year, a specific job you both did before the one you're emailing about. That's the whole point.

What you need

This skill takes two inputs:

  1. Recipient dossier (from recipient-research)
  2. Writer's profile (context/about-me.md or equivalent)

If either is missing, run recipient-research first or ask the user to point you at their about-me file.

What to look for

Cross-reference the two profiles for overlap in these eight categories. The further down the list, the higher the leverage.

1. Career parallel (medium — common)

Worked at the same company, in the same industry, in similar roles. Use only if there's a specific overlap — same product, same team, same era.

2. Educational parallel (low — overused)

Same school. Useful only with a specific shared experience (same professor, same class, same dorm). "Stanford MBA" alone is too generic.

3. Geographic / origin parallel (medium — strong if specific)

Same hometown. Same immigration story. Lived in the same unusual place. Visited the same specific spot.

4. Formative experience parallel (high)

Both military veterans. Both first-generation immigrants. Both built something from zero. Both worked a manual-labor job before a desk job. Specific date or place beats abstract category.

5. Hobby / passion parallel (high — disarming)

Both Ironman triathletes. Both jazz pianists. Both run ultras. Both bake bread. Specificity matters: "like you, I'm 6 marathons in" beats "like you, I'm a runner."

6. Contrarian opinion parallel (highest — most memorable)

You both believe an unfashionable thing about the same topic. "Like you, I think the LLM-evals space is wildly under-priced. A recent paper from a frontier lab made the case better than I could." This signals you've read them carefully and you have your own brain. (In a real email, you'd name the specific paper and the specific lab — the placeholder above keeps the shape generic for the documentation.)

7. Unusual / coincidental detail (highest — disarming + memorable)

Both wear the same obscure watch brand. Both reference the same indie film. Both quote the same Greek philosopher. The more unusual, the better — these are the lines people screenshot.

8. Shared friction / shared frustration (high — earns trust)

Both have wrestled with the same hard problem. "Like you, I tried to ship X with Y constraint. I lost three months on it. I'd love your scar tissue." Vulnerability + specificity.

What to avoid (the wall of shame)

  • "Like you, I believe in [generic industry truism]"
  • "Like you, but at a smaller scale"
  • "Like you, I'm passionate about complex problems"
  • "Like you, I think AI will change the world"
  • "Like you, I went to a top school"
  • "Like you, I'm a builder" — what does that even mean

If your candidate hook fits any of these patterns, throw it out and look harder.

Output format

## Top 5 connection angles, ranked

### 1. <One-line hook> [category, leverage score 1–10]
**The line as it could appear in the email:**
> "Like you, <specific genuine connection>."

**Why it works:** <one sentence>
**Source for the recipient detail:** <link>
**Source for the writer's detail:** <about-me.md line or equivalent>

### 2. <…>
### 3. <…>
### 4. <…>
### 5. <…>

## Notes
- <If two of the angles are close to each other, flag it — pick one>
- <If the writer's profile is thin in an area where the recipient is rich, name it as a gap>
- <If you can't find five strong angles, say so. Better one great hook than five weak ones.>

How to use

  1. User says: "Find connections between me and [target]" or invokes after recipient-research.
  2. Read context/about-me.md (or equivalent).
  3. Read the dossier.
  4. Cross-reference for the eight categories above.
  5. Rank by leverage — contrarian opinions and unusual coincidences at the top.
  6. Hand off to cold-email-coach or fun-angle.

When to flag a problem

If the only overlap you can find is generic ("we both went to Stanford"), tell the user honestly. That's a signal they should:

  • Get a warm intro instead of going cold
  • Pick a different target where the connection is stronger
  • Lead with the offer rather than the connection (skip rule 5, double down on rule 10)

A weak connection forced into the email is worse than no connection.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.