Agent-native · private beta

A QA layer your AI sales agent runs before it sends.

ChatGPT rewrites. Sales Message QA judges. One message in — a structured verdict out: score, confidence, failure modes, risk flags, a rewrite, and a machine-readable send / no-send decision.

€19 · one-time · no subscription · evaluated manually during beta

Connect your agent

Paste the URL into Claude Code and say: "Read this spec and use it to audit my outbound before sending."

The problem

Agents write outbound faster than anyone can review it.

The failures that kill replies aren't typos. They're sales-logic defects — no trigger, fake personalization, a CTA that doesn't fit the relationship. A grammar pass never catches them.

What it checks

Ten dimensions of message quality

Every submission is scored across the things that actually determine whether a buyer replies.

Buyer relevance

Does the message map to this persona's real priorities?

Trigger strength

Is there a timely reason to reach out — or none?

Pain specificity

Is the problem concrete, or vague 'efficiency' filler?

Value clarity

Is the outcome quantified, or a restated feature?

Credibility

Is there a proof point, or an unbacked claim?

CTA quality

Is the ask sized to the relationship and easy to act on?

Personalization quality

Real signal, or surface-level name-dropping?

Tone fit

Does the register match the channel and the buyer?

Brevity

Does every sentence earn its place?

Brand & compliance risk

Any phrasing that creates exposure?

Input & output

One message in. Structured QA out.

Agents need to know exactly what they submit and exactly what they get back. No prose blob — a typed object your code can branch on.

Example input

{
  "message_text": "Hi Jordan — saw you're scaling the SDR team at Northwind. We help RevOps teams cut manual list-building. Open to a 15-min call Thursday?",
  "channel": "email",
  "target_persona": "VP of Sales / RevOps lead",
  "product_context": "Outbound data enrichment for B2B sales teams",
  "desired_outcome": "book_meeting"
}

Example output

{
  "score": 74,
  "confidence_score": 0.86,
  "verdict": "revise_before_sending",
  "failure_modes": [
    {
      "type": "fake_personalization",
      "severity": "medium",
      "detail": "Opening references a public fact ('scaling the SDR team') with no specific trigger or insight."
    },
    {
      "type": "weak_value_clarity",
      "severity": "low",
      "detail": "'Cut manual list-building' is a feature, not a quantified outcome."
    }
  ],
  "risk_flags": [
    {
      "type": "unverified_claim",
      "severity": "low",
      "detail": "No proof point backs the implied efficiency gain."
    }
  ],
  "rewrite": "Hi Jordan — Northwind posted 4 new SDR roles this month. Teams scaling outbound that fast usually lose hours to manual list-building. We cut that to near-zero for RevOps leads like you. Worth 15 minutes Thursday to see if it fits?",
  "agent_instruction": "Do not send as-is. Apply the rewrite or strengthen the trigger and add one quantified proof point, then re-run QA.",
  "agent_next_action": "revise_message_before_sending"
}

Differentiation

Why not just ask ChatGPT?

Because a rewrite is not a decision. A general model hands you new copy and no way to know if it's better. This service returns a judgment your agent can act on automatically.

Generic AI rewrite tool

Returns new copy, every time.

No score, no verdict, no confidence.

No way to gate a send programmatically.

You still don't know if it's good enough.

Sales Message QA

Judges: score + confidence + verdict.

Names failure modes and risk flags separately.

Returns a rewrite and an agent instruction.

Emits agent_next_action for send / no-send.

What it catches

The failure modes behind dead outbound

Polite Garbage

Reads fine, says nothing, gives no reason to reply.

Triggerless Outreach

No event or insight justifies the message today.

Fake Personalization

A scraped fact dressed up as research.

CTA Mismatch

The ask is too big, too vague, or wrong for the stage.

Pain Laundering

A generic pain reworded to sound specific.

Credibility Gap

Bold claims with nothing to back them up.

AI Smell

Patterns and phrasing that read as machine-generated.

Brand Risk

Tone or claims that create exposure for the sender.

Scope

What this is not

Honest boundaries so agents and evaluators can route correctly.

  • ×Not a legal or compliance review
  • ×Not deliverability or spam-placement testing
  • ×No guaranteed reply, open, or conversion rate
  • ×Not suitable for regulated claims requiring formal sign-off

Pricing

One price. One evaluation.

€19/ message · one-time
No subscription. No seats. Pay per QA.
  • Full structured verdict (score, confidence, verdict)
  • Failure modes + separate risk flags
  • Rewrite + agent instruction + next action
  • Machine-readable JSON output
Request Beta Access

Beta: access is granted by email and messages are evaluated manually. Card checkout arrives in Phase 2.

For machines

Built to be read by agents, not just people

The full service definition — schemas, limitations, purchase flow — is published as structured data.

Give your sales agent a QA layer before it touches pipeline.

We're onboarding a small set of beta users. Request access and we'll evaluate your messages manually while the service is in static beta preview — no instant delivery yet.

spec_version 0.1.0 · private_beta · beta@salesmessageqa.dev