Outreach email

A cold email to a professor is the applicant's first impression, competing for attention in an overflowing inbox. The emails that get replies are short, specific, and unmistakably written to this person — they prove the applicant read the work and have a real reason to want this lab. The emails that get ignored are long, generic, and could have been sent to anyone. This skill exists to produce the former, grounded in fact, in the applicant's voice.

The cardinal rule, from shared/references/ethics.md: draft, never send. You produce a draft for the applicant to review, edit, and send themselves. You may record the contact and schedule a follow-up reminder, but the applicant owns the send.

Step 1 — Load the people

Read the professor's profile at knowledge-base/professors/<slug>.md. Check the typed front-matter fields first — they're the contract: email_policy (is a cold admissions email even welcome?), admission_model (does the professor or a committee decide?), and accepting_students. Then read the Outreach hooks, Research agenda, and Notes (subject conventions, application routing) for the substance. Read the applicant's knowledge-base/profile/profile.md and skim profile/cv-master.md for the one or two credentials most relevant to this professor.

If no professor profile exists, run professor-analyzer first — an email written without it will be generic, which defeats the purpose. Before drafting, honor the contact rules:

• email_policy: do-not-email-admissions (or Notes saying so) → don't produce a cold "please take me" email. Surface it: the right move is a program application that names them, or a narrow, substantive research question. Hand the hooks to application-materials for the SOP instead.
• admission_model: program-committee / rotation → outreach is low-leverage; say so and steer effort to the application unless the applicant has a specific research reason to write.
• If email_policy is blank, fall back to the ## Notes prose, then default to a careful cold email only when nothing says otherwise.

Step 2 — Cold email vs. follow-up

Check knowledge-base/interactions/<professor-slug>.md. If there's prior contact, this is a follow-up, not a cold email — read what was already said and when, and write something that adds value rather than just "bumping". If there's no prior contact, it's a cold email.

Step 3 — Draft a cold email

Keep it tight — roughly 120–200 words, readable on a phone in 20 seconds. Structure:

• Subject line: specific and honest, e.g. "Prospective PhD — sim-to-real RL & your HiL-SERL work". Use any subject convention the profile Notes specify.
• Who you are (one line): name, current position, the single most relevant credential.
• Why this lab (the core): reference one genuine, specific hook from the profile — a particular recent paper and a real reaction or question, or a concrete link between their open problem and the applicant's work. This is the sentence that proves it isn't spam.
• What you're asking: a clear, low-friction ask (whether they're taking students for <year>, whether they'd be open to a short chat). One ask, not five.
• Sign-off: a line pointing to attached CV / a link, and thanks.

Use at most one or two hooks — piling on every paper reads as a literature review, not a message. Match the applicant's voice from their profile; don't make them sound like a press release. Flag with [brackets] any specific only the applicant can supply (a result, a number, a personal motivation) rather than inventing it.

Step 4 — Draft a follow-up

A follow-up should be shorter than the original and give a reason to re-engage, not just guilt. Good reasons: a new relevant result or paper of the applicant's, a brief clarification of fit, or a genuinely new specific question about their work. Keep it polite, brief, and easy to ignore-or-reply. Reference the prior email lightly ("following up on my note from <date>"). Never be pushy or imply obligation — respect that silence is an answer.

Step 5 — Produce the draft and log it

Present the draft to the applicant clearly (subject + body), with any [brackets] they must fill and a one-line note on why you chose the hook you did. Do not send it.

Then append an entry to knowledge-base/interactions/<professor-slug>.md following the interaction-log format in shared/schemas/README.md:

### <date> — drafted: cold email
Subject: ...
Summary: one line on the angle/hook used
Follow-up due: <date ~10–14 days out>
Status: draft — awaiting user send

Set a sensible follow-up date (typically ~2 weeks for a cold email). If the applicant confirms they've sent it, update Status to "sent". Offer to have application-tracker watch the follow-up date.

Guardrails

Follow shared/references/ethics.md without exception. Never fabricate a shared interest, a paper, a result, or enthusiasm the applicant doesn't have — a professor who catches one invented detail discards the whole message and remembers the name. If genuine fit is thin, say so to the applicant rather than papering over it with flattery; a weaker but honest email beats a strong dishonest one. And never send — the applicant always reviews first.