relationship-status-summarizer
Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Surface where a professional relationship stands by pulling from Gmail — last touchpoint, what was discussed, open threads, commitments, and a suggested next move. Use whenever a user wants to re-engage someone, prep for outreach, or get a quick status check before reaching out. Trigger on "where do I stand with [Name]", "catch me up on my history with [Name]", "what's my relationship with [Name]", "when did I last talk to [Person]", "what was the last thing discussed with [Name]", "should I reach out to [Person]", "help me re-engage [Name]", "what do I owe [Person]", "any open threads with [Company]", "what's my history with [Name]", or any variation of wanting to understand a relationship's current state before making a move. Also trigger when the user mentions a person's name and asks about follow-ups, last contact, or relationship warmth. Designed for anyone managing a large network — sales, business development, recruiting, account management, partnerships, fundraising, consulting, job searching — who needs a fast, honest read on where things stand. Do NOT use to draft the outreach message itself — use the intro-email-generator skill for that.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- latour-ai/skillsedited, first seen Oct 19, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- latour-ai/skills★ 6994% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository39 other files it gives its agents.
- audit-request-binderSkill
- business-one-pagerSkill
- call-notes-followupSkill
- company-first-passSkill
- conference-prep-plannerSkill
- contract-obligations-extractorSkill
- counterparty-diligenceSkill
- decision-memo-drafterSkill
- document-redline-diffSkill
- executive-briefingSkill
- expert-interview-synthesisSkill
- hundred-day-plan-drafterSkill
- inbox-triageSkill
- intro-email-generatorSkill
- linkedin-post-generatorSkill
- marketing-claims-prescreenSkill
- market-map-builderSkill
- meeting-minutes-generatorSkill
- nda-reviewSkill
- payout-reconciliation-checkerSkill
- performance-attribution-narratorSkill
- periodic-report-synthesizerSkill
- podcast-episode-analyzerSkill
- presentation-transcript-extractorSkill
- private-company-tear-sheetSkill
- professional-profile-briefSkill
- project-folder-organizerSkill
- proposal-first-passSkill
- questionnaire-red-flag-scannerSkill
- questionnaire-response-drafterSkill
- red-team-premortemSkill
- side-letter-term-extractorSkill
- skill-idea-generatorSkill
- stakeholder-update-generatorSkill
- teach-meSkill
- unit-economics-memoSkill
- watchlist-news-alertSkill
- weekly-recap-writerSkill
- workflow-to-ai-solverSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
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 53
If no timeframe is specified, default to searching the last 18 months.
- Distinctive: line 59
Run targeted searches to surface all meaningful email history with this person.
- Distinctive: line 77
Keep threads where either party wrote something substantive, there was a clear ask, commitment, or follow-through, the relationship was …
- Distinctive: line 85
Use this exact output structure:
- Distinctive: line 128
No email history is a clear answer.
- Distinctive: line 134
If the name is common and returns multiple people, ask the user to clarify with an email address, company, or more context.
- Distinctive: line 141
No invented history — every data point traces to an actual email
≈ “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
Relationship Status Summarizer
Pull from Gmail to give the user an honest, fast read on where a specific relationship stands — and what to do next.
Why This Skill Exists
Managing a large professional network means dozens of relationships in various states of warmth, dormancy, or momentum. Before re-engaging someone — a prospective customer, a potential partner, a candidate, a former colleague, a donor, an intro target — you want to know: When did we last talk? What was discussed? Did I leave anything open? Is it weird to reach out now? This skill answers those questions from the email record so the user can move quickly and confidently.
What This Skill Does Not Do
- It only reads Gmail. It cannot check CRM records, calendar history, LinkedIn messages, or other communication channels unless those integrations are explicitly available.
- It does not fabricate relationship history. If there are no emails with this person, say so clearly.
- It does not ghost-write the outreach message — that is the intro-email-generator skill's job. This skill ends with a suggested next move, not a drafted email.
- It cannot assess relationship quality beyond what the email record shows. A warm email thread does not guarantee a warm relationship — use judgment.
Inputs
The user provides at minimum:
- A person's name, email address, or company name
Optionally helpful:
- Context on why they're asking (re-engagement, meeting prep, warm intro, deal or project follow-up, hiring, renewal)
- Approximate timeframe to search ("last year", "last 6 months")
- The user's goal in re-engaging this person
If no timeframe is specified, default to searching the last 18 months.
Workflow
Step 1 — Search Gmail for relevant threads
Run targeted searches to surface all meaningful email history with this person. Use the Gmail connector tools for all email operations.
Primary search — by name or email:
- Query:
from:[name or email] OR to:[name or email] - maxResults: 50
- newer_than: 18 months (or user-specified range)
Secondary search — by company (if name alone is ambiguous):
- Query:
[company name] -category:promotions -category:social - maxResults: 20
- newer_than: 18 months
Deduplicate by thread ID. If the name is common and returns many unrelated threads, use company name or any additional context the user provided to filter.
Step 2 — Filter to signal threads
Discard threads that are clearly noise: newsletters, automated notifications, marketing emails, calendar accept/decline responses with no personal content, automated receipts, confirmations, e-signature completions, ticketing-system updates, and CC-only threads where neither party initiated anything meaningful.
Keep threads where either party wrote something substantive, there was a clear ask, commitment, or follow-through, the relationship was being actively developed (intros, meetings, proposals, projects, interviews, negotiations), or there is an unanswered message from either side.
Step 3 — Read the surviving threads
For each surviving thread, read enough to understand what the conversation was about, what was asked or offered, whether it was resolved or left open, and the tone and warmth of the exchange.
Step 4 — Produce the relationship brief
Use this exact output structure:
## Relationship Brief: [Name] — [Title / Company if known]
### Last Contact
Date: [Most recent email date]
Direction: [You reached out / They reached out / Mutual]
Subject: [Subject line of most recent thread]
Summary: [1-2 sentences on what was discussed or exchanged]
### Relationship History
[3-6 bullet chronological summary of meaningful touchpoints]
- [Date] — [What happened and outcome]
### Open Threads
[List any unanswered emails, pending commitments, or explicitly flagged follow-ups.
If none: "No open threads identified."]
### Relationship Temperature
One-line honest read:
- **Warm** — Recent, engaged, mutual exchange
- **Cooling** — Last contact 6-12 months ago, ended well
- **Cold** — Last contact 12+ months ago, or ended without resolution
- **Never started** — No meaningful email history found
### Suggested Next Move
One specific, actionable recommendation. Not a drafted message — just the right move.
### Email Record Summary
[X threads found | Most recent: [date] | Oldest: [date] | Time since last contact: X months]Tone and Judgment Principles
Be honest, not flattering. If the relationship is cold, say it's cold. If the user left something open and didn't follow through, flag it — that's the most useful thing you can surface.
Recency matters most. A warm thread from 3 years ago and nothing since is a cold relationship.
Direction signals intent. If the user has been doing all the reaching out, note that pattern explicitly.
Open threads are critical. An unanswered email is the single most important thing to surface — it shapes both the temperature and the next move.
No email history is a clear answer. Say so directly: "No meaningful email history found." Don't pad with speculation.
CC-only threads are weak signal. Only count direct, substantive exchange.
When the Person Is Ambiguous
If the name is common and returns multiple people, ask the user to clarify with an email address, company, or more context. Do not guess which person is meant.
Quality Checks
Before delivering, verify:
- Threads cited are actually with the target person (not a different person with a similar name)
- No invented history — every data point traces to an actual email
- Relationship Temperature is calibrated to recency, not volume
- Open threads are surfaced even if uncomfortable (especially if the user dropped the ball)
- Suggested Next Move is specific to this relationship, not generic advice
Important Reminder
This brief is only as good as the email record. Relationships that live primarily in phone calls, messaging apps, LinkedIn, or in-person meetings will appear colder than they actually are. Flag this caveat when the email record is sparse but the user's context suggests the relationship may be richer than what's visible in Gmail.
Works well with
Once the brief says the move is to reach out, use intro-email-generator to draft the message. Use professional-profile-brief when the user needs background on the person beyond what the email record holds, and call-transcript-followup to close the loop after the next conversation happens.
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.

