Email auditor

Email Auditor

Audit pasted cold email copy across 11 dimensions (7 structural + 4 craft), rate each 1-5, list deliverability red flags from references/inbox-radar.md, output strengths + rewritten suggestions, and persist the audit to a dated file.

Inputs

• Required: pasted email copy (detect subject + body)
• Optional (helpful): icp.md in workspace - enables context-aware critique

Workspace path

Default campaign: default. If user invocation includes --campaign <name>, use that. Full rule: see using-outreach-superpower.

Process

Step 1 - Detect copy structure

Parse the pasted text for:

• Subject line: look for explicit Subject: prefix first. If absent, fall back to: first non-empty line that does NOT start with greeting tokens (Hi, Hello, Hey, Dear, Good) AND is shorter than 80 characters.
• Body: everything after the subject line.
• Sender name / signature (optional): bottom-of-paste lines after a blank line.

If no subject line is detectable by either rule, ask once: "What's the subject line?" Then re-run detection with the supplied subject before proceeding to Step 2.

Step 2 - Read context (if available)

Read outreach-workspace/<campaign>/icp.md if it exists. Extract:

• Primary segment name (e.g., "VP Engineering at Series A SaaS")
• Buying motion (self-serve / demo / both - from icp.md fields)
• Top 1-2 angles from the Angle Kit (if present)

Set icp_aware: true in the audit frontmatter. Use the extracted info during Step 3 scoring (see ICP-aware adjustments below).

Step 3 - Score 11 criteria (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

3a. Structural dimensions (7)

Criterion	What to check
Subject Line	Specific enough to convey topic; <60 chars; personalization present when ICP supports it; curiosity without clickbait; no spam triggers
Opening Line	Grabs attention; personalized; relevant to recipient's industry/role; avoids "Hope you're doing well"
Body Copy	Clear, concise, valuable; recipient-focused (not product-focused); credibility/social proof present; <150-200 words
Call-to-Action	Clear next step; encourages reply; binary CTA preferred ("Open to a 10-min call?")
Formatting & Readability	Short sentences; no walls of text; conversational tone; mobile-friendly
Personalization & Human Touch	References work/company/industry; feels 1:1 not mass; empathetic
Spam & Deliverability	No spam triggers, excessive caps, exclamation marks; <=1 link; subject <60 chars; body <200 words

3b. Craft dimensions (4) - from PB-02

Criterion	What to check
Tone match	Copy matches the ICP brand voice / segment expectations (professional / conversational / witty / bold / warm). If icp.md is absent, infer tone from the copy itself and call out internal inconsistency (e.g., warm opener, aggressive CTA). Bands: 1 = register clashes with ICP (bro-y for enterprise, stiff for creator/SMB); 3 = consistent register but generic, not tuned to segment; 5 = register clearly matches ICP brand voice and stays consistent across opener/body/CTA.
Hook strength	First-line specificity, relevance, curiosity factor. Bands: 1 = generic opener ("Hope this finds you well," "I came across your company"); 3 = relevant but unspecific (role/industry reference without named context); 5 = specifically references the recipient's measurable context (named achievement, named pain, named recent event).
Spintax usage	Count of {spin}...{endspin} blocks; presence in high-frequency phrases (greeting, body, sign-off, CTA). Bands: 1 = zero spin blocks (no variant diversity, fails A/Z testing); 3 = 1-2 blocks present but missing from high-frequency phrases; 5 = >=3 blocks covering greeting, body, and sign-off/CTA, with tonally consistent variants.
Word economy	Body word count. Target <120 for email body (PB-02: 60-100 for opening, 50-70 for follow-up). Bands: 1 = body >150 words with preamble and filler sentences (>25 words each); 3 = within range but contains 1-2 lines that fail the "So What?" test; 5 = within range, every sentence earns its place, no preamble.

ICP-aware adjustments (only if icp.md was loaded):

• Personalization & Human Touch: weight against segment fit. Flag if email targets generic "founders" when ICP says "VP Engineering at Series A SaaS."
• Call-to-Action: flag mismatches with the buying motion (e.g., "Book a 30-min call" CTA when ICP says self-serve preferred).
• Body Copy: flag if value prop doesn't match the segment's primary pain.
• Tone match: weight against the ICP's declared brand voice or segment expectations. State the segment name explicitly when calling out a mismatch.

State the segment name explicitly in feedback when raising an ICP-related issue: "Doesn't fit your ICP segment 'VP Engineering at Series A SaaS' - they prefer self-serve."

Step 3c - Deliverability red flags

After scoring the 11 dimensions, run a focused deliverability scan against references/inbox-radar.md. This is a separate check (not double-counted in the Spam & Deliverability score) that surfaces concrete risk patterns the user should fix before sending.

Scan for:

Red flag	Source rule
Spam-trigger words (e.g., free, guarantee, click here, act now, 100%, urgent, winner)	inbox-radar.md "Content suggestions" + PB-02 spam-word list
Body word count outside 60-150 word ideal range	inbox-radar.md "Content suggestions"
Subject >60 characters or ALL CAPS or 3+ exclamation marks	inbox-radar formatting concerns
Multiple links in opening email (>1 link, or any link in step 1)	PB-02 + inbox-radar
Imbalanced text-to-link or text-to-image ratio (e.g., 1 link in 5-word body)	inbox-radar
Generic unverified merge tags without fallbacks ({{First Name}} without |'there')	PB-02 merge-tag rules
Subject line uses urgency stack: "URGENT", "ACT NOW", "Limited time"	inbox-radar spam-trigger words

Output format for this section in the audit:

### Deliverability red flags

- **Spam trigger detected:** "free trial" in body line 3. Suggest: "no-commitment pilot" or "14-day test run."
- **Length warning:** body is 187 words; ideal range is 60-150 (per `references/inbox-radar.md`).
- (...if no flags found, write: "No red flags detected. See `references/inbox-radar.md` for the full deliverability framework.")

If the email has 3+ red flags, recommend the user run an Inbox Radar test before sending and cite the reference.

Step 4 - Output to chat

## Audit: <subject line preview>

**Overall: X/55** (sum of 11 criterion ratings)
**Structural: X/35** | **Craft: X/20**

| Criterion | Rating | Feedback |
|---|---|---|
| Subject Line | X/5 | ... |
| Opening Line | X/5 | ... |
| Body Copy | X/5 | ... |
| Call-to-Action | X/5 | ... |
| Formatting & Readability | X/5 | ... |
| Personalization & Human Touch | X/5 | ... |
| Spam & Deliverability | X/5 | ... |
| Tone match | X/5 | ... |
| Hook strength | X/5 | ... |
| Spintax usage | X/5 | ... |
| Word economy | X/5 | ... |
| **Overall** | **X/55** | **Structural X/35 + Craft X/20** |

### Deliverability red flags
- (list from Step 3c, or "No red flags detected" if clean)

### Strengths
- ...

### Improvements
- **Subject:** <rewritten suggestion>
- **Opener:** <rewritten suggestion>
- **Body:** <rewritten suggestion>
- **CTA:** <rewritten suggestion>
- **Spintax:** <added variants if missing>

*(Improvements list pointed fixes per component; Rewritten draft is the synthesized paste-ready copy.)*

### Rewritten draft
Subject: ...
Body: ...

Step 5 - Write audit file

Filename: audits/YYYY-MM-DD-<slugified-subject>.md. Slug = first 5 words of subject, lowercase, hyphenated. If file exists, append -2, -3, etc.

Frontmatter:

---
audited_at: YYYY-MM-DD
overall_score: X/55
structural_score: X/35
craft_score: X/20
deliverability_flags: <count>
icp_aware: true | false
subject_preview: <first 60 chars>
---

Body: include the original copy (for reference), then the full audit output above (11 dimensions + deliverability red flags + strengths + improvements + rewritten draft).

Step 6 - Cite the source

• If icp.md was used, end the audit with a one-liner: "Critique informed by icp.md segment '<segment name>'."
• If any deliverability red flags fired, end with: "Deliverability framework: references/inbox-radar.md. Re-run an Inbox Radar test after revisions."