draft-email
Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Draft and (with approval) send negotiation emails through the user's email account. Use for itemized-bill requests, dispute follow-ups, call recaps, and settlement correspondence.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- qa-aman/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- jezweb/vite-flare-startertheir own version, first seen Oct 9, 2026
- manfromtunis/melek-skillstheir own version, first seen May 28, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- jezweb/vite-flare-starter★ 49same name
- qa-aman/claude-skills★ 24same name
- manfromtunis/melek-skills★ 9same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- benchmark-priceSkill
- collectionsSkill
- financial-assistanceSkill
- insurance-appealSkill
- intakeSkill
- phone-prepSkill
- review-billSkill
- send-letterSkill
- strategySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 10
Use whatever email tooling exists — Gmail/Outlook MCP connector, himalaya, Apple Mail via computer use, anything the user has wired up.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Draft email
Capability check (once per session)
Use whatever email tooling exists — Gmail/Outlook MCP connector, himalaya,
Apple Mail via computer use, anything the user has wired up. Preferred
mode: create a draft in their account and have them hit send. If no email
tool exists: write the draft to cases/<case>/letters/ as
email-yyyy-mm-dd-<topic>.md with To/Subject/Body clearly marked for
copy-paste, and offer to help set up the Gmail MCP connector for next time.
Non-negotiables
- Never send without the user seeing the exact final text, recipient, and subject, and approving. One approval = one email. "Send it" in a prior session is not approval for this one.
- Find the right address first: billing-department email from the bill or provider site. Avoid generic contact forms when a real mailbox exists — forms don't leave the user a copy.
- Subject line formula:
Account #<number> — WRITTEN DISPUTE: <topic>(or REQUEST). The account number makes it land in the right queue; the word "dispute" starts the paper trail.
Structure that works
- One line of who/what: patient name, account number, date of service.
- The ask, stated in the first three lines. Not the story — the ask.
- Numbered facts, each anchored to a document ("your itemized statement dated…", "your published standard-charges file lists…", "per our call with Maria on 7/2, ref #48119…").
- The specific action requested + a response deadline (10–15 business days), and "please respond in writing."
- "This account is in dispute" when applicable — and a line noting the dispute should be recorded on the account.
Tone per AGENTS.md: firm, factual, boring. No emotion in the email; keep
that for the user. Templates in templates/emails/; personalize fully — a
placeholder left in ruins credibility.
After sending
Log to case.md (date, recipient, subject, deadline set). Calendar the
follow-up: no reply by deadline → one follow-up citing the first, then up
the escalation ladder.
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.

