Claude Email Skill

Use when Codex, Hermes, OpenClaw, Claude Code, Cowork, or another AI agent needs to plan, review, implement, audit, or improve email work focused on Claude-oriented email prompts, campaign drafting, critique loops, and human review. Triggers include requests about prompt packs, campaign draft evaluation, review rubrics, rewrite loops, and Claude Code email handoffs.

Use Claude for structured reasoning and critique, but keep the message accountable to the brief, audience, and approval owner.

Decision Lens

• Primary lens: Claude-oriented email prompts, campaign drafting, critique loops, and human review.
• Common request signals: prompt packs, campaign draft evaluation, review rubrics, rewrite loops, and Claude Code email handoffs.
• Default posture: Use Claude for structured reasoning and critique, but keep the message accountable to the brief, audience, and approval owner.
• Useful output family: Claude prompts, campaign drafts, critique rubrics, rewrite instructions, variant sets, and approval-ready copy packets.
• Production boundary: separate recommendation from execution.

When To Use

Use this skill for Claude-oriented email prompts, campaign drafting, critique loops, and human review. It is designed for agent workflows where email work must be specific, reviewable, and safe across planning, drafting, implementation, QA, or operational handoff.

Operating Workflow

1. Turn the request into a clear email brief with audience, promise, proof, CTA, tone, constraints, and forbidden claims.
2. Choose the Claude task shape: ideation, first draft, critique, rewrite, variant generation, or final QA.
3. Provide Claude with bounded source material and ask it to cite which input drove each major claim.
4. Review outputs against a rubric instead of taste alone: relevance, specificity, risk, readability, and production readiness.
5. For rewrites, preserve approved facts and change only the requested dimension such as tone, length, structure, or CTA emphasis.
6. Mark anything that needs human approval, legal review, data validation, or ESP testing.

Review Criteria

• The prompt gives Claude enough context without exposing unnecessary private data.
• Drafts do not invent guarantees, customer proof, pricing, or compliance claims.
• Critique feedback is actionable and tied to the brief.
• Variants test a meaningful hypothesis rather than superficial wording.
• Final copy includes subject, preview, body, CTA, and QA notes when relevant.

Output Pattern

Return Claude prompts, campaign drafts, critique rubrics, rewrite instructions, variant sets, and approval-ready copy packets. Keep recommendations concrete. Separate analysis from live-system actions, and require explicit approval before sending email, importing contacts, changing DNS, altering suppression rules, or editing production automations.