reply-handling-and-objections
Skill4 starsChanged 29 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when a prospect replies to outbound and you need to classify the reply and respond - positive, referral, not-now, not-interested, wrong-person, unsubscribe, out-of-office, or competitor. Covers a reply taxonomy, the booking-the-meeting mindset, handling common objections ("send me info", "no budget", "already have a tool", "not the right person"), and when to stop.
In this repository18 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- account-researchSkill
- cold-email-writingSkill
- content-marketing-engineSkill
- discovery-and-qualificationSkill
- email-deliverabilitySkill
- generative-engine-optimizationSkill
- gtm-automation-with-chronosSkill
- gtm-strategySkill
- ideal-customer-profileSkill
- lead-sourcing-and-enrichmentSkill
- linkedin-outreachSkill
- multichannel-sequencesSkill
- outbound-metrics-and-benchmarksSkill
- outreach-personalizationSkill
- positioning-and-messagingSkill
- seo-fundamentalsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 40
When interest appears, reduce friction to near zero: offer two specific times (or a link), keep it short, confirm, and get off email.
- Distinctive: line 71
Do treat "wrong person" as a referral opportunity.
- Distinctive: line 73
Don't: keep the cadence running after a reply or ignore an opt-out.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Reply handling & objections
Overview
Getting a reply is the hard part - most outbound dies in silence. So treat every reply as valuable, respond fast (minutes-to-hours, not days), and remember the goal of a cold conversation is usually one next step: the meeting. Not to win the debate in the thread.
First move on any reply: pull the prospect out of the automated sequence. A human conversation has started; the cadence must stop firing.
Reply taxonomy → action
| Category | Signal | Action |
| Positive / interested | "tell me more", "sure, when?" | Propose 2 concrete times; book it. Don't over-sell. |
| Soft yes / "send info" | wants material, not a call yet | Send one tight thing + a soft time ask. Keep it moving. |
| Not now / timing | "circle back in Q3" | Agree, set a real reminder, exit to nurture - don't nag. |
| Objection | budget / tool / priority | Handle once (below), then re-ask for the meeting. |
| Wrong person | "not my area" | Ask for the right person by name - this is a referral, gold. |
| Referral | "talk to Dana" | Thank them, reach Dana, reference the intro. |
| Not interested | clear no | Acknowledge gracefully, offer a door for later, stop. |
| Unsubscribe / angry | "remove me" | Suppress instantly, apologize briefly, never contact again. |
| Out-of-office | auto-reply | Capture return date + any named alternate; re-queue politely. |
Book-the-meeting mindset
When interest appears, reduce friction to near zero: offer two specific times (or a link), keep it short, confirm, and get off email. The more you explain before the call, the more reasons you give to say no. The call is where you sell.
Handling the common objections
Pattern: acknowledge → reframe briefly → re-ask for a small next step. Once.
- "Send me more info." Often a polite brush-off. Send one relevant thing, then: "Happy to - and 10 minutes will save you reading all of it. Thursday?"
- "No budget." "Totally fair - most teams we help weren't budgeting for this until [trigger]. Worth a look so it's on your radar for next cycle?"
- "We already use [competitor]." "Makes sense - a lot of our customers switched from them because of [specific gap]. Worth a 10-min comparison?"
- "Not a priority." "Understood. Can I check back in [timeframe]? And if it's never relevant, just say so and I'll stop."
- "Not the right person." "No problem - who owns [area]? Happy to reach out directly." (A name here beats a grudging yes.)
Reframe once. If the no holds, respect it - a graceful exit protects the brand and leaves a door open.
When to stop
- Explicit no, unsubscribe, or "remove me" → stop immediately and suppress.
- Two handled objections with no movement → exit to long-term nurture.
- Any sign of annoyance → stop. The relationship is worth more than one sequence.
Do / Don't
- Do reply fast, pull them from the sequence, and drive to one next step.
- Do treat "wrong person" as a referral opportunity.
- Don't argue an objection more than once.
- Don't keep the cadence running after a reply or ignore an opt-out.
Common mistakes
- Slow replies that let interest cool.
- Pitching the whole product in-thread instead of booking the call.
- Sequence keeps auto-sending after the person replied.
- Treating "not interested" as a prompt to try harder - it burns goodwill.
Go live with Chronos (optional)
geo_list_message_history/geo_get_message_thread- read the full conversation context.geo_reply_to_email_thread- send a classified, on-brand reply in the thread.geo_send_manual_message- one-off human message on any connected channel.geo_list_linkedin_dms- triage LinkedIn replies the same way.
Chronos pulls a replied prospect out of automation and can draft the right response per reply type - you approve the send.
Connect in ~30s → CONNECT-CHRONOS.md. Free, no card.
See also: discovery-and-qualification, multichannel-sequences, cold-email-writing.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.