novahiz 0.1.0

package/bundled-skills/codex-history-ingest/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,248 @@
+---
+name: codex-history-ingest
+description: >
+  Ingest Codex CLI conversation history into the Obsidian wiki. Use this skill when the user wants to mine
+  their past Codex sessions for knowledge, import their ~/.codex folder, extract insights from previous coding
+  sessions, or says things like "process my Codex history", "add my Codex conversations to the wiki", or
+  "what have I discussed in Codex before". Also triggers when the user mentions .codex sessions, rollout files,
+  session_index.jsonl, or Codex transcript logs.
+---
+
+# Codex History Ingest — Conversation Mining
+
+You are extracting knowledge from the user's past Codex sessions and distilling it into the Obsidian wiki. Session logs are rich but noisy: focus on durable knowledge, not operational telemetry.
+
+This skill can be invoked directly or via the `wiki-history-ingest` router (`/wiki-history-ingest codex`).
+
+## Before You Start
+
+**Writing profile:** Before drafting or rewriting natural-language Markdown, read and apply the `Writing Profile Resolution` section in `llm-wiki/SKILL.md`. Framework schema, provenance, safety, and operation-specific requirements take precedence.
+`WRITING.md` preferences apply only to newly drafted or rewritten natural-language Markdown; preserve source content and structured records.
+
+1. **Resolve config** — follow the Config Resolution Protocol in `llm-wiki/SKILL.md` (inline `@name` override → walk up CWD for `.env` → global config → prompt setup). This gives `OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH` and `CODEX_HISTORY_PATH` (defaults to `~/.codex`)
+2. Read `.manifest.json` at the vault root to check what has already been ingested
+3. Read `index.md` at the vault root to understand what the wiki already contains
+
+## Ingest Modes
+
+### Append Mode (default)
+
+Check `.manifest.json` for each source file. Only process:
+
+- Files not in the manifest (new session rollouts, new index files)
+- Files whose modification time is newer than `ingested_at` in the manifest
+
+Use this mode for regular syncs.
+
+### Full Mode
+
+Process everything regardless of manifest. Use after `wiki-rebuild` or if the user explicitly asks for a full re-ingest.
+
+## Codex Data Layout
+
+Codex stores local artifacts under `~/.codex/`.
+
+```
+~/.codex/
+├── sessions/                          # Session rollout logs by date
+│   └── YYYY/MM/DD/
+│       └── rollout-<timestamp>-<id>.jsonl
+├── archived_sessions/                 # Archived rollout logs
+├── session_index.jsonl                # Lightweight index of thread id/name/updated_at
+├── history.jsonl                      # Local transcript history (if persistence enabled)
+├── config.toml                        # User config (contains history settings)
+└── state_*.sqlite / logs_*.sqlite     # Runtime DBs (usually skip)
+```
+
+### Key data sources ranked by value
+
+1. `session_index.jsonl` — best inventory source for IDs, titles, and freshness
+2. `sessions/**/rollout-*.jsonl` — rich structured transcript events
+3. `history.jsonl` — useful fallback/timeline aid if enabled
+
+Avoid ingesting SQLite internals unless the user explicitly asks.
+
+## Step 1: Survey and Compute Delta
+
+Scan `CODEX_HISTORY_PATH` and compare against `.manifest.json`:
+
+- `~/.codex/session_index.jsonl`
+- `~/.codex/sessions/**/rollout-*.jsonl`
+- `~/.codex/archived_sessions/**` (optional; only if user asks for archived history)
+- `~/.codex/history.jsonl` (optional fallback)
+
+Classify each file:
+
+- **New** — not in manifest
+- **Modified** — in manifest but file is newer than `ingested_at`
+- **Unchanged** — already ingested and unchanged
+
+Report a concise delta summary before deep parsing.
+
+## Step 2: Parse Session Index First
+
+`session_index.jsonl` typically has entries like:
+
+```json
+{"id":"...","thread_name":"...","updated_at":"..."}
+```
+
+Use it to:
+
+- Build a canonical session inventory
+- Prioritize recent/high-signal sessions
+- Map rollout IDs to human-readable thread names
+
+## Step 3: Parse Rollout JSONL Safely
+
+Each `rollout-*.jsonl` line is an event envelope with:
+
+```json
+{
+  "timestamp": "...",
+  "type": "session_meta|turn_context|event_msg|response_item",
+  "payload": { ... }
+}
+```
+
+### Extraction rules
+
+- Prioritize user intent and assistant-visible outputs
+- Favor `response_item` records with user/assistant message content
+- Use `event_msg` selectively for meaningful milestones; ignore pure telemetry
+- Treat `session_meta` as metadata (cwd, model, ids), not user knowledge
+
+### Skip/noise filters
+
+- Token accounting events
+- Tool plumbing with no semantic content
+- Raw command output unless it contains reusable decisions/patterns
+- Repeated plan snapshots unless they add novel decisions
+
+### Critical privacy filter
+
+Rollout logs can include injected instructions, tool payloads, and sensitive text. Do not ingest verbatim system/developer prompts or secrets.
+
+- Remove API keys, tokens, passwords, credentials
+- Redact private identifiers unless relevant and approved
+- Summarize instead of quoting raw transcripts
+
+## Step 4: Cluster by Topic
+
+Do not create one wiki page per session.
+
+- Group by stable topics across many sessions
+- Split mixed sessions into separate themes
+- Merge recurring concepts across dates/projects
+- Use `cwd` from metadata to infer project scope
+
+## Step 5: Distill into Wiki Pages
+
+Route extracted knowledge using existing wiki conventions:
+
+- Project-specific architecture/process -> `projects/<name>/...`
+- General concepts -> `concepts/`
+- Recurring techniques/debug playbooks -> `skills/`
+- Tools/services -> `entities/`
+- Cross-session patterns -> `synthesis/`
+
+For each impacted project, create/update `projects/<name>/<name>.md` (project name as filename, never `_project.md`).
+
+### Writing rules
+
+- Distill knowledge, not chronology
+- Avoid "on date X we discussed..." unless date context is essential
+- Add `summary:` frontmatter on each new/updated page (1-2 sentences, <= 200 chars)
+- Add confidence and lifecycle fields to every new page:
+  ```yaml
+  base_confidence: 0.42
+  lifecycle: draft
+  lifecycle_changed: <ISO date today>
+  ```
+  Leave `lifecycle` unchanged on update.
+- Add provenance markers:
+  - `^[extracted]` when directly grounded in explicit session content
+  - `^[inferred]` when synthesizing patterns across events/sessions
+  - `^[ambiguous]` when sessions conflict
+- Add/update `provenance:` frontmatter mix for each changed page
+
+## Step 6: Update Manifest, Log, and Index
+
+### Update `.manifest.json`
+
+For each processed source file:
+
+- `ingested_at`, `size_bytes`, `modified_at`
+- `source_type`: `codex_rollout` | `codex_index` | `codex_history`
+- `project`: inferred project name (when applicable)
+- `pages_created`, `pages_updated`
+
+Add/update a top-level project/session summary block:
+
+```json
+{
+  "project-name": {
+    "source_path": "~/.codex/sessions/...",
+    "last_ingested": "TIMESTAMP",
+    "sessions_ingested": 12,
+    "sessions_total": 40,
+    "index_updated_at": "TIMESTAMP"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### Update special files
+
+Update `index.md` and `log.md`:
+
+```
+- [TIMESTAMP] CODEX_HISTORY_INGEST sessions=N pages_updated=X pages_created=Y mode=append|full
+```
+
+**`hot.md`** — Read `$OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH/hot.md` (create from the template in `wiki-ingest` if missing). Update **Recent Activity** with a one-line summary — e.g. "Ingested 12 Codex sessions; surfaced recurring patterns in CLI tooling and shell scripting." Keep the last 3 operations. Update `updated` timestamp.
+
+## Privacy and Compliance
+
+- Distill and synthesize; avoid raw transcript dumps
+- Default to redaction for anything that looks sensitive
+- Ask the user before storing personal/sensitive details
+- Keep references to other people minimal and purpose-bound
+
+## Reference
+
+See `references/codex-data-format.md` for field-level parsing notes and extraction guidance.
+
+## QMD Refresh After Vault Writes
+
+QMD is a search index, not the source of truth. If `$QMD_WIKI_COLLECTION` is empty or unset, skip this step. Run it only after this skill has written or rewritten vault markdown. If QMD refresh fails, do not roll back the vault changes; report the QMD status separately.
+
+Use `$QMD_CLI` if set; otherwise use `qmd`.
+
+```bash
+${QMD_CLI:-qmd} update
+```
+
+If the output says vectors are needed or embeddings may be stale, run:
+
+```bash
+${QMD_CLI:-qmd} embed
+```
+
+Verify the collection with either:
+
+```bash
+${QMD_CLI:-qmd} ls "$QMD_WIKI_COLLECTION"
+```
+
+or, when a specific page path is known:
+
+```bash
+${QMD_CLI:-qmd} get "qmd://$QMD_WIKI_COLLECTION/<page>.md" -l 5
+```
+
+Record one of:
+- `QMD refreshed: update + embed + verified`
+- `QMD refreshed: update only + verified`
+- `QMD skipped: QMD_WIKI_COLLECTION unset`
+- `QMD skipped: qmd CLI unavailable`
+- `QMD failed: <short error summary>`

package/bundled-skills/codex-history-ingest/references/codex-data-format.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# Codex Data Format — Detailed Reference
+
+This reference describes practical, observed structures for Codex local history ingestion.
+
+## Root Layout
+
+`~/.codex/` usually contains:
+
+- `sessions/YYYY/MM/DD/rollout-*.jsonl` — primary structured session logs
+- `archived_sessions/` — archived rollouts
+- `session_index.jsonl` — session id/name/update index
+- `history.jsonl` — transcript history (depends on config)
+- `config.toml` — history persistence controls
+
+## Session Index
+
+`~/.codex/session_index.jsonl` entries are one JSON object per line, commonly:
+
+```json
+{"id":"<thread-id>","thread_name":"<title>","updated_at":"<timestamp>"}
+```
+
+Use this as the inventory backbone for append/full mode deltas.
+
+## Rollout JSONL
+
+`rollout-*.jsonl` files are event streams with envelope fields:
+
+```json
+{
+  "timestamp": "2026-04-12T09:40:02.337Z",
+  "type": "session_meta|turn_context|event_msg|response_item",
+  "payload": { "...": "..." }
+}
+```
+
+Common `type` values:
+
+- `session_meta` — run metadata (id, cwd, model/provider, etc.)
+- `turn_context` — turn-scoped context envelope
+- `event_msg` — runtime events (task lifecycle, token/accounting, tool-call markers)
+- `response_item` — model response items (messages, tool calls, reasoning blocks)
+
+### Typical payload subtypes
+
+Observed examples include:
+
+- `event_msg.payload.type`: `task_started`, `user_message`, `agent_message`, `mcp_tool_call_end`, `exec_command_end`, `token_count`
+- `response_item.payload.type`: `message`, `function_call`, `function_call_output`, `reasoning`
+
+## Extraction Strategy
+
+### Keep
+
+- User intent from user-message records
+- Assistant conclusions/decisions from assistant message records
+- High-signal tool outputs that encode reusable knowledge
+
+### Skip
+
+- Pure telemetry (`token_count`, low-level plumbing events)
+- Internal reasoning traces unless user explicitly asks to retain them
+- Verbose execution dumps with no durable insight
+
+## Privacy Notes
+
+Rollouts can contain sensitive data:
+
+- Injected instruction layers
+- Tool inputs/outputs
+- Potential secrets in command output
+
+Always redact secrets and summarize instead of copying raw transcript content.
+
+## Config Interaction
+
+`~/.codex/config.toml` keys that affect ingestion completeness:
+
+- `history.persistence = "save-all" | "none"`
+- `history.max_bytes = <int>` (truncation/compaction cap)
+
+`codex exec --ephemeral` runs may not persist rollout files.

package/bundled-skills/cold-email/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+---
+name: cold-email
+description: Write B2B cold emails and follow-up sequences that get replies. Use when the user wants to write cold outreach emails, prospecting emails, cold email campaigns, sales development emails, or SDR emails. Also use when the user mentions "cold outreach," "prospecting email," "outbound email," "email to leads," "reach out to prospects," "sales email," "follow-up email sequence," "nobody's replying to my emails," or "how do I write a cold email." Covers subject lines, opening lines, body copy, CTAs, personalization, and multi-touch follow-up sequences. For warm/lifecycle email sequences, see emails. For sales collateral beyond emails, see sales-enablement.
+metadata:
+  version: 2.0.0
+---
+
+# Cold Email Writing
+
+You are an expert cold email writer. Your goal is to write emails that sound like they came from a sharp, thoughtful human — not a sales machine following a template.
+
+## Before Writing
+
+**Check for product marketing context first:**
+If `.agents/product-marketing.md` exists (or `.claude/product-marketing.md`, or the legacy `product-marketing-context.md` filename, in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.
+
+Understand the situation (ask if not provided):
+
+1. **Who are you writing to?** — Role, company, why them specifically
+2. **What do you want?** — The outcome (meeting, reply, intro, demo)
+3. **What's the value?** — The specific problem you solve for people like them
+4. **What's your proof?** — A result, case study, or credibility signal
+5. **Any research signals?** — Funding, hiring, LinkedIn posts, company news, tech stack changes
+
+Work with whatever the user gives you. If they have a strong signal and a clear value prop, that's enough to write. Don't block on missing inputs — use what you have and note what would make it stronger.
+
+---
+
+## Writing Principles
+
+### Write like a peer, not a vendor
+
+The email should read like it came from someone who understands their world — not someone trying to sell them something. Use contractions. Read it aloud. If it sounds like marketing copy, rewrite it.
+
+### Every sentence must earn its place
+
+Cold email is ruthlessly short. If a sentence doesn't move the reader toward replying, cut it. The best cold emails feel like they could have been shorter, not longer.
+
+### Personalization must connect to the problem
+
+If you remove the personalized opening and the email still makes sense, the personalization isn't working. The observation should naturally lead into why you're reaching out.
+
+See [personalization.md](references/personalization.md) for the 4-level system and research signals.
+
+### Lead with their world, not yours
+
+The reader should see their own situation reflected back. "You/your" should dominate over "I/we." Don't open with who you are or what your company does.
+
+### One ask, low friction
+
+Interest-based CTAs ("Worth exploring?" / "Would this be useful?") beat meeting requests. One CTA per email. Make it easy to say yes with a one-line reply.
+
+---
+
+## Voice & Tone
+
+**The target voice:** A smart colleague who noticed something relevant and is sharing it. Conversational but not sloppy. Confident but not pushy.
+
+**Calibrate to the audience:**
+
+- C-suite: ultra-brief, peer-level, understated
+- Mid-level: more specific value, slightly more detail
+- Technical: precise, no fluff, respect their intelligence
+
+**What it should NOT sound like:**
+
+- A template with fields swapped in
+- A pitch deck compressed into paragraph form
+- A LinkedIn DM from someone you've never met
+- An AI-generated email (avoid the telltale patterns: "I hope this email finds you well," "I came across your profile," "leverage," "synergy," "best-in-class")
+
+---
+
+## Structure
+
+There's no single right structure. Choose a framework that fits the situation, or write freeform if the email flows naturally without one.
+
+**Common shapes that work:**
+
+- **Observation → Problem → Proof → Ask** — You noticed X, which usually means Y challenge. We helped Z with that. Interested?
+- **Question → Value → Ask** — Struggling with X? We do Y. Company Z saw [result]. Worth a look?
+- **Trigger → Insight → Ask** — Congrats on X. That usually creates Y challenge. We've helped similar companies with that. Curious?
+- **Story → Bridge → Ask** — [Similar company] had [problem]. They [solved it this way]. Relevant to you?
+
+For the full catalog of frameworks with examples, see [frameworks.md](references/frameworks.md).
+
+---
+
+## Subject Lines
+
+Short, boring, internal-looking. The subject line's only job is to get the email opened — not to sell.
+
+- 2-4 words, lowercase, no punctuation tricks
+- Should look like it came from a colleague ("reply rates," "hiring ops," "Q2 forecast")
+- No product pitches, no urgency, no emojis, no prospect's first name
+
+See [subject-lines.md](references/subject-lines.md) for the full data.
+
+---
+
+## Follow-Up Sequences
+
+Each follow-up should add something new — a different angle, fresh proof, a useful resource. "Just checking in" gives the reader no reason to respond.
+
+- 3-5 total emails, increasing gaps between them
+- Each email should stand alone (they may not have read the previous ones)
+- The breakup email is your last touch — honor it
+
+See [follow-up-sequences.md](references/follow-up-sequences.md) for cadence, angle rotation, and breakup email templates.
+
+---
+
+## Quality Check
+
+Before presenting, gut-check:
+
+- Does it sound like a human wrote it? (Read it aloud)
+- Would YOU reply to this if you received it?
+- Does every sentence serve the reader, not the sender?
+- Is the personalization connected to the problem?
+- Is there one clear, low-friction ask?
+
+---
+
+## What to Avoid
+
+- Opening with "I hope this email finds you well" or "My name is X and I work at Y"
+- Jargon: "synergy," "leverage," "circle back," "best-in-class," "leading provider"
+- Feature dumps — one proof point beats ten features
+- HTML, images, or multiple links
+- Fake "Re:" or "Fwd:" subject lines
+- Identical templates with only {{FirstName}} swapped
+- Asking for 30-minute calls in first touch
+- "Just checking in" follow-ups
+
+---
+
+## Data & Benchmarks
+
+The references contain performance data if you need to make informed choices:
+
+- [benchmarks.md](references/benchmarks.md) — Reply rates, conversion funnels, expert methods, common mistakes
+- [personalization.md](references/personalization.md) — 4-level personalization system, research signals
+- [subject-lines.md](references/subject-lines.md) — Subject line data and optimization
+- [follow-up-sequences.md](references/follow-up-sequences.md) — Cadence, angles, breakup emails
+- [frameworks.md](references/frameworks.md) — All copywriting frameworks with examples
+
+Use this data to inform your writing — not as a checklist to satisfy.
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **prospecting**: For building and qualifying the prospect list that this skill writes outreach against — the natural upstream step before cold-email
+- **copywriting**: For landing pages and web copy
+- **emails**: For lifecycle/nurture email sequences (not cold outreach)
+- **social**: For LinkedIn and social posts
+- **product-marketing**: For establishing foundational positioning
+- **revops**: For lead scoring, routing, and pipeline management

package/bundled-skills/cold-email/evals/evals.json

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+{
+  "skill_name": "cold-email",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "Write a cold email to VP of Marketing at mid-size B2B SaaS companies. We sell a content analytics platform that shows which blog posts actually drive pipeline. Our main proof point: customers see 3x increase in content-attributed revenue within 90 days.",
+      "expected_output": "Should check for product-marketing.md first. Should write like a peer, not a vendor. Should use one of the structure frameworks (observation→problem→proof→ask or similar). Subject line should be 2-4 words, lowercase, internal-looking. Every sentence should earn its place. Personalization should connect to the prospect's problem, not just their name. Should use the 3x revenue proof point as social proof, not a feature claim. CTA should be low-friction (not 'book a demo'). Should provide 2-3 variations. Should include a quality check against the guidelines.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Checks for product-marketing.md",
+        "Writes like a peer, not a vendor",
+        "Uses a structure framework from the skill",
+        "Subject line is short, lowercase, internal-looking",
+        "Every sentence earns its place (concise)",
+        "Personalization connects to prospect's problem",
+        "Uses proof point as social proof",
+        "CTA is low-friction",
+        "Provides 2-3 variations"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "prompt": "Help me write a cold email to CTOs at enterprise companies. I sell cybersecurity training. My current email has a 2% open rate and 0% reply rate.",
+      "expected_output": "Should diagnose the current email's likely problems based on 2% open rate (subject line issue) and 0% reply rate (body/relevance issue). Should apply voice calibration for CTO audience (respect their time, technical credibility, executive-level language). Should provide a completely new email following structure frameworks. Subject line should be 2-4 words, look internal. Should adapt tone for enterprise CTOs — more formal than startup audience but still peer-like. Should provide the email plus analysis of why each element works.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Diagnoses problems from the performance data",
+        "Identifies subject line as likely open rate issue",
+        "Applies voice calibration for CTO audience",
+        "Subject line is short, lowercase, internal-looking",
+        "Adapts tone for enterprise audience",
+        "Uses structure framework from the skill",
+        "Explains why each element works"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "prompt": "write me a follow-up sequence. prospect didn't reply to my first email about our HR software. how many should I send and how far apart?",
+      "expected_output": "Should trigger on casual phrasing. Should apply the follow-up sequence guidance: 3-5 follow-ups recommended. Each follow-up should add something new (new angle, new proof point, new value) — not just 'bumping' or 'checking in.' Should provide timing recommendations between emails. Should provide actual follow-up email copy for each touch, with different angles. Should include a breakup email at the end. Should note that each follow-up should be shorter than the previous.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Triggers on casual phrasing",
+        "Recommends 3-5 follow-up emails",
+        "Each follow-up adds something new",
+        "Does not use 'just bumping' or 'checking in' language",
+        "Provides timing between emails",
+        "Provides actual copy for each follow-up",
+        "Includes a breakup email",
+        "Follow-ups get progressively shorter"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "prompt": "Review this cold email and tell me what's wrong: 'Dear Sir/Madam, I hope this email finds you well. I wanted to reach out to introduce our innovative cloud-based platform that leverages AI to streamline your business operations. We have helped over 500 companies transform their workflows. I would love to schedule a 30-minute call to discuss how we can help your organization. Best regards, John'",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the quality check framework. Should identify multiple problems: 'Dear Sir/Madam' (no personalization), 'I hope this email finds you well' (filler), 'innovative cloud-based platform' (jargon/buzzwords), 'leverages AI to streamline' (vague vendor language), 'transform their workflows' (means nothing), '30-minute call' (too much ask for cold email), entire email is about the sender not the prospect. Should rewrite following the principles: peer tone, observation→problem→proof→ask structure, every sentence earns its place, personalization connected to their problem, low-friction CTA.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Identifies lack of personalization",
+        "Identifies filler phrases",
+        "Identifies jargon and buzzwords",
+        "Identifies vendor language vs peer language",
+        "Identifies CTA as too high-friction",
+        "Notes email is sender-focused not prospect-focused",
+        "Provides a rewritten version",
+        "Rewrite follows cold email principles"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "prompt": "What are the best subject lines for cold emails? I want to maximize open rates.",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the subject line guidelines: short (2-4 words), lowercase or sentence case, internal-looking (should look like it came from a colleague, not a vendor). Should provide examples following these principles. Should explain why these work (bypass promotional filters, trigger curiosity, don't look like marketing). Should warn against common bad subject lines (ALL CAPS, emojis, clickbait, long subjects). Should note that subject line gets them to open but body gets them to reply.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Applies subject line guidelines (2-4 words, lowercase, internal-looking)",
+        "Provides specific examples",
+        "Explains why the format works",
+        "Warns against common bad subject line patterns",
+        "Notes distinction between open rate and reply rate"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "prompt": "Can you help me set up an automated email drip campaign for leads who download our whitepaper?",
+      "expected_output": "Should recognize this is a lifecycle/nurture email sequence, not cold outreach. Should defer to or cross-reference the emails skill, which handles drip campaigns, lead nurture sequences, and lifecycle emails. Cold email is specifically for unsolicited outbound outreach to prospects who haven't opted in. Should make this distinction clear.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Recognizes this as lifecycle/nurture email, not cold outreach",
+        "References or defers to emails skill",
+        "Explains the distinction between cold email and lifecycle email",
+        "Does not attempt to design a nurture sequence using cold email patterns"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/bundled-skills/cold-email/references/benchmarks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+# Benchmarks, Data & Expert Methods
+
+## Core Performance Metrics (2024–2025)
+
+| Metric                     | Average | Good   | Excellent | Source                   |
+| -------------------------- | ------- | ------ | --------- | ------------------------ |
+| Open rate                  | 27.7%   | 40–45% | 50%+      | Belkins, Snov.io         |
+| Reply rate                 | 4–5.8%  | 5–10%  | 10–15%    | Belkins, Reachoutly      |
+| Reply rate (best-in-class) | —       | —      | 15–25%+   | Digital Bloom, Instantly |
+| Positive reply %           | ~48%    | 55–60% | 62–65%    | Digital Bloom            |
+| Meeting booking rate       | 0.5–1%  | 1–2%   | 2.3%+     | Reachoutly               |
+| Bounce rate                | 7.5%    | <4%    | <2%       | Belkins                  |
+
+## Realistic Funnel Model
+
+500 emails → 100 opens (20%) → 25 replies (5%) → 8 positive replies (30%) → 4 meetings (50%) → 1 client (25% close). ~**0.2% end-to-end conversion** for average performers.
+
+## Performance Levers (ranked by impact)
+
+1. **Hook type** — Timeline hooks outperform problem hooks by 3.4x in meetings
+2. **Personalization depth** — Up to 250% more replies
+3. **Brevity** — 25–75 words optimal, 83% more replies under 75 words
+4. **Targeting precision** — ≤50 contacts per campaign = 2.76x higher reply rates
+5. **Follow-up strategy** — First follow-up adds 49% more replies
+6. **Reading level** — 3rd–5th grade = 67% more replies
+7. **Send timing** — Thursday peaks at 6.87% reply rate
+
+## Declining Effectiveness Trend
+
+Reply rates dropped from 7–8% (2020–2022) to 4–5.8% (2024–2025), ~15% YoY decline. Drivers: inbox saturation (10+ cold emails/week, 20% say none relevant), stricter anti-spam (Google's threshold: 0.1% complaints), AI email flood (more volume, less quality signal). Writing craft matters more, not less — gap between average and excellent is widening.
+
+## Response Rates by Seniority
+
+- **Entry-level:** Highest engagement at 8% reply, 50% open
+- **C-level:** 23% more likely to respond than non-C-suite when they engage (6.4% vs 5.2%)
+- **CTOs/VP Tech:** 7.68% reply
+- **CEOs/Founders:** 7.63% reply
+- **Heads of Sales:** 6.60% (most targeted role, highest saturation)
+
+## Industry Variation
+
+**Highest responding:** Nonprofits (16.5%+), legal (10%), EdTech (7.8%), chemical (7.3%), manufacturing (6.1%).
+**Lowest responding:** SaaS (3.5%), financial services (3.4%), IT services (3.5%).
+
+## Top 15 Mistakes (ranked by impact)
+
+1. **Too long** — 70% of emails above 10th-grade level. Under 75 words = 83% more replies
+2. **Too self-focused** — "We are a leading..." signals sales pitch. Count I/We sentences
+3. **No clear value prop** — 71% of decision-makers ignore irrelevant emails
+4. **Generic templates** — {{FirstName}} isn't personalization. Recipients detect instantly
+5. **Feature dumping** — "Great reps lead with problems" (Lavender). One proof point beats ten features
+6. **False personalization** — "Loved your post!" without specifics is transparent
+7. **Asking too much too soon** — 30-min call in first email = "proposing on first date"
+8. **Pushy language** — "Act Now" stacking increases spam flagging by 67%
+9. **No CTA** — Without a clear next step, momentum dies
+10. **"Just checking in" follow-ups** — "I never heard back" = 12% drop in bookings
+11. **Wrong tone for audience** — Founder ≠ RevOps lead ≠ sales leader
+12. **Jargon/buzzwords** — "Leverage synergistic platform" → "We help you book more meetings"
+13. **Unsubstantiated claims** — "300% more leads" without proof triggers skepticism
+14. **Too many contacts per company** — 1–2 people = 7.8% reply; 10+ = 3.8%
+15. **Fake urgency** — Fake "Re:" / "Fwd:" / countdown timers destroy trust
+
+## Cultural Calibration
+
+| Factor       | US              | UK                       | Germany/DACH         | Scandinavia             |
+| ------------ | --------------- | ------------------------ | -------------------- | ----------------------- |
+| Tone         | Direct, casual  | Polite, professional     | Precise, data-driven | Fact-based, egalitarian |
+| Length       | Shorter, blunt  | Longer, insight-led      | Detail-oriented      | Concise but substantive |
+| Social proof | Outcome numbers | Research-led credibility | Technical precision  | Shared values           |
+
+North America: 4.1% response. Europe: 3.1%. Asia-Pacific: 2.8%. Shorter, more direct sequences work better in US. UK needs more insight/personality. GDPR affects European tone.
+
+## Expert Quick Reference
+
+| Expert         | Core Method                                                     | Best For                                        |
+| -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- |
+| Alex Berman    | 3C's: Compliment → Case Study → CTA                             | High-ticket B2B services, agencies              |
+| Josh Braun     | "Poke the Bear" — neutral questions exposing invisible problems | Empathy-driven consultative selling             |
+| Kyle Coleman   | Systematic research + AI personalization at scale               | Bridging mass outreach and deep personalization |
+| Becc Holland   | Psychographic personalization, Premise Buckets                  | Combining personalization with relevance        |
+| Will Allred    | Data-driven coaching, Mouse Trap, Vanilla Ice Cream             | Any context; universal frameworks               |
+| Justin Michael | 1–3 sentence hyper-brevity, quote their own words               | High-velocity SDR teams at scale                |
+| Sam Nelson     | Agoge Sequence — Triple on Day 1 (email + LinkedIn + call)      | Multi-channel, tiered personalization           |