Outreach Message Grader
The brutal friend who reads your outreach before your prospect does.
Every outreach message feels good the moment you write it — that's the trap. The recipient reads it in four seconds with their thumb on the archive button, and the flaws you can't see (template smell, buried ask, zero proof you know who they are) decide everything. This grader reads like that recipient: it scores your message out of 100 against the five things that predict replies, names each problem specifically, and hands back a rewritten version. Grade before you send; your reply rate is downstream of this moment.
The rubric this grader uses
- Personalization proof (30 points): one line only you could have written to only them. “Love your content” scores zero — naming their specific post, product decision or situation scores full marks.
- Ask size (25 points): can they say yes from their phone in ten seconds? “Worth a look?” passes; “let's find 30 minutes to explore synergies” fails on both words and size.
- What's-in-it-for-them (20 points): the message must contain a reason to care that isn't your need for a customer. An insight, a relevant observation, a genuinely useful offer.
- Template smell (15 points): “I hope this finds you well”, “I came across your profile”, merge-field energy. One detected phrase caps the whole category.
- Length and shape (10 points): under 120 words, short paragraphs, no links in message one on DM channels. Walls of text get archived unread regardless of content.
Example output
Message: “Hi! I came across your profile and was really impressed by your journey. I'd love to hop on a quick 30-minute call to explore synergies between what we do. Our platform helps businesses like yours 10x their growth. When works for you?” (channel: LinkedIn DM)
SCORE: 22/100 PROBLEMS · “Came across your profile” + “really impressed” — template smell, caps personalization at 0/30. Impressed by what, specifically? · The ask is a 30-minute call in message one — maximum-size ask, minimum-size trust. 3/25. · “10x their growth” + “synergies” — claims with no evidence, jargon with no meaning. 2/20. · Nothing in it for them except your calendar. 0/20 on value. REWRITE “Saw your post about churn spiking after the pricing change — the mid-tier squeeze you described matches what we measured across 40 SaaS accounts last quarter. Wrote up the pattern and the two fixes that worked; want the link? No call required.” (Example output — paste your own message above for a real grade.)
Frequently asked questions
- What's a good score?
- 70+ is send-worthy; 50-70 means fix the named problems first; under 50, start over with the rewrite. Most first drafts land in the 30s — that's normal, and exactly why grading before sending beats learning from silence.
- Should I just send the rewritten version?
- Use it as the skeleton, then re-insert your real specifics — the rewrite can only be as personal as what you pasted. If the rewrite feels generic, that's the grader telling you the original contained no actual research to preserve.
- Is my message stored anywhere?
- No. It's sent to the AI for grading, the response comes back, and nothing is logged to a database or used for anything else. Paste freely.
- Why is this free — what's the catch?
- No catch and no signup. This tool is funded by EaseClaw, an AI agent that finds people publicly asking for what you sell and drafts your replies. If the free tool is useful, some people try the $9 trial. That's the whole business model.