sequence-performance — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited sequence-performance (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Goes beyond vanity metrics. Most campaign reports tell you open rate and reply rate. This skill reads the actual emails you sent, reads every reply you received, classifies the responses, evaluates your copy, evaluates your lead quality, and tells you specifically what's working, what's not, and what to do about it.
Three layers of analysis:
Use this skill when:
Pull three categories of data from the user's outreach tool:
| Data Point | What We Need |
|---|---|
| Total emails sent | By touch (Touch 1, Touch 2, Touch 3, etc.) |
| Total unique recipients | Deduplicated count |
| Opens | By touch, unique opens vs. total opens |
| Replies | By touch, total reply count |
| Bounces | Hard bounces + soft bounces |
| Unsubscribes | Count |
| Clicks | If link tracking is on |
| Positive replies | If categorized in the tool |
| Meetings booked | If tracked |
How to pull by tool:
| Tool | Method |
|---|---|
| Smartlead (MCP) | mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_stats, mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_sequence_analytics, mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_variant_statistics |
| Instantly / Outreach / Lemlist / Apollo | Ask user for CSV export or paste metrics |
| Other | User provides CSV with columns: email, status, opened, replied, bounced |
Pull the actual templates for every touch:
| Tool | Method |
|---|---|
| Smartlead (MCP) | mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_sequences |
| Others | User pastes the copy or provides CSV export |
Pull the actual text of every reply:
| Tool | Method |
|---|---|
| Smartlead (MCP) | mcp__smartlead__get_campaign_leads_history, mcp__smartlead__fetch_master_inbox_replies |
| Others | User provides reply dump or CSV export |
Campaign: [name]
Status: [active/paused/completed]
Sent: X emails to Y recipients
Replies: Z (full text pulled for analysis)
Touches: N touches, M variants
Data looks complete? (Y/n)| Metric | Cold (SMB) | Cold (Mid-Market) | Cold (Enterprise) | Warm/Nurture |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open rate | 40-60% | 30-50% | 25-40% | 50-70% |
| Reply rate | 3-8% | 2-5% | 1-3% | 10-20% |
| Positive reply rate | 1-3% | 0.5-2% | 0.3-1% | 5-10% |
| Bounce rate | <3% | <3% | <2% | <1% |
| Unsubscribe rate | <1% | <1% | <0.5% | <0.5% |
Overall metrics: open rate, reply rate, positive reply rate, bounce rate, unsubscribe rate, deliverability rate. Compare each to the benchmark.
Per-touch breakdown:
Variant analysis (if A/B testing):
Read every reply, classify it, and extract patterns.
| Category | Definition |
|---|---|
| Positive interest | Wants to learn more, open to a conversation |
| Meeting request | Explicitly asks to meet or provides availability |
| Warm / Curious | Interested but non-committal, asks questions |
| Objection — Timing | Not now, but potentially later |
| Objection — Budget | Can't afford or not a priority |
| Objection — Competitor | Already using a competing solution |
| Objection — Relevance | Doesn't see the fit |
| Objection — Authority | Not the right person |
| Not interested | Flat no |
| Auto-reply / OOO | Automated response |
| Referral | Redirects to someone else |
| Question | Asks about product/offering |
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Strong | >50% positive/warm. Objections are handleable. |
| Mixed | 30-50% positive. Mix of handleable and terminal. |
| Weak | <30% positive. Dominated by "not interested" and "not relevant." |
| Toxic | High unsubscribe + angry replies. Something is fundamentally wrong. |
Evaluate the actual email copy against best practices and reply data.
| Criterion | Red Flags |
|---|---|
| Length | >60 chars gets truncated on mobile |
| Specificity | Generic "Quick question" or "Checking in" |
| Spam triggers | "Free", "Limited time", ALL CAPS |
| Open rate correlation | Low open rate = subject line problem |
| Criterion | Red Flags |
|---|---|
| Hook (first line) | "I'm reaching out because..." or "We are a company that..." |
| Length | Over 150 words |
| Value prop clarity | Jargon, vague language, buzzwords |
| Proof points | No proof = no credibility |
| Personalization | Only {first_name} merge field |
| CTA | Multiple CTAs, high-friction asks, or no CTA |
| Filler language | "Hope this finds you well", "just checking in" |
| Sequence progression | Touch 2 is just a "bump" of Touch 1 |
Grade each touch A through F on: hook quality, value prop clarity, proof usage, personalization level, CTA quality.
Evaluate whether we're sending to the right people.
| Pattern | What It Tells You |
|---|---|
| High "not relevant" replies | Sending to people who don't have the problem |
| High "wrong person" replies | Right companies, wrong roles |
| High "already have a solution" | Right problem, late to the party |
| High "timing" objections | Right people, right problem, wrong moment — not a targeting issue |
| Low reply + high open rate | People open but don't find it relevant — copy/targeting mismatch |
| High bounce rate | List quality issue — bad emails, old data |
# Sequence Performance Review: [Campaign Name]
**Period:** [date range] | **Status:** [active/paused/completed]
---
## Executive Summary
**Overall verdict:** [One sentence]
| Dimension | Grade | Assessment |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| Metrics | [A-F] | [one-liner] |
| Copy Quality | [A-F] | [one-liner] |
| Lead Quality | [A-F] | [one-liner] |
| Reply Quality | [Strong/Mixed/Weak/Toxic] | [one-liner] |
### What's Working (Double Down)
- [Specific thing with data]
### What's Not Working (Fix or Kill)
- [Specific thing with data]
### Top 3 Actions
1. [Highest-impact action]
2. [Second]
3. [Third]
---
## Detailed Metrics
### Overall Performance
| Metric | Actual | Benchmark | Status |
|--------|--------|-----------|--------|
| Open rate | X% | Y% | [above/below] |
| Reply rate | X% | Y% | [above/below] |
| Bounce rate | X% | <3% | [flag] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
### Performance by Touch
| Touch | Sent | Open Rate | Reply Rate | Marginal Reply Rate | % of Total Replies |
|-------|------|-----------|------------|--------------------|--------------------|
| 1 | X | Y% | Z% | Z% | W% |
### Variant Performance (if A/B testing)
| Touch | Variant | Subject | Sent | Open Rate | Reply Rate | Confidence | Action |
|-------|---------|---------|------|-----------|------------|------------|--------|
---
## Reply Deep Dive
### Reply Classification
| Category | Count | % of Replies |
|----------|-------|-------------|
### Top Objections
| Objection | Count | Handleable? | Suggested Response |
|-----------|-------|------------|-------------------|
### Notable Replies
[5-10 most instructive replies with quotes]
---
## Copy Assessment
[Subject line verdicts, body grades, sequence architecture assessment]
---
## Lead Quality
[Targeting assessment, actual vs intended ICP]
---
## Recommendations (Prioritized)
### High Priority (Do This Week)
1. **[Action]** — [data point] → [expected impact]
### Medium Priority (Do This Month)
2. **[Action]** — [data point] → [expected impact]
### Kill List
- [Anything that should be stopped]| Finding | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Open rate below benchmark | Subject line rewrite — suggest 3 alternatives |
| Reply rate below + open rate fine | Body copy issue — focus on hook, proof, CTA |
| Both below benchmark | Full sequence rewrite |
| High "not relevant" objections | Targeting issue — tighten ICP filters |
| High "wrong person" referrals | Title targeting issue — shift to referred titles |
| High "already have solution" | Add competitive differentiation to copy |
| High "timing" objections | Not a problem — set up 90-day re-engagement |
| One variant clearly winning | Scale winner, test new idea in losing slot |
| Touch 2/3 near-zero marginal replies | Cut sequence short or rewrite with new angles |
| High bounce rate | List hygiene — verify emails, check data source |
| Deliverability <95% | Infrastructure — check SPF/DKIM/DMARC, reduce volume |
Present the executive summary, then ask:
Full detailed report available. Want to see the full breakdown, or act on a specific recommendation?| Missing Data | What Gets Skipped | Still Useful? |
|---|---|---|
| Reply text | Reply classification + objection patterns | Partially — metrics + copy still run |
| Variant data | Variant analysis | Yes — single-variant analysis still runs |
| Lead demographics | Targeting assessment | Yes — infers from reply patterns |
| Open tracking | Open rate analysis | Partially — reply rate + copy still run |
Minimum viable data: Emails sent + reply count + email copy text.
Free. Pure reasoning + data from user's outreach tool.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.