Phd Outreach

Output Requirements

For every screened advisor, include:

• Advisor name.
• Institution.
• Research themes.
• Why matched.
• Fit score.
• Confidence: high, medium, or low.
• Risk note.

For every drafted email, include:

• Advisor name.
• Institution.
• Subject line.
• Outreach draft, normally 150 to 220 words.
• Shorter variant.
• Evidence used.
• Items requiring manual verification.

Evidence Rules

Never fabricate:

• Advisor details.
• Paper titles.
• Lab names.
• Research directions.
• Recruiting status.
• Student names.
• Grants or funding.
• Applicant achievements.
• Familiarity with a professor's work.

When evidence is weak, stale, ambiguous, or based on only one source, mark confidence as low or medium and explain the gap.

Use phrases such as:

• "Based on the public lab page..."
• "The available profile suggests..."
• "I found limited recent public evidence..."
• "This match is plausible but needs manual verification..."

Avoid phrases that imply unsupported familiarity:

• "I have long admired your work..."
• "Your groundbreaking research..."
• "I was fascinated by all of your papers..."
• "My background perfectly matches your lab..."

Personalization Rules

Personalization must be specific but restrained.

• Mention at most one or two concrete papers, systems, datasets, themes, or lab directions per email unless more are strongly justified.
• Prefer themes and methods over name-dropping many papers.
• Connect the applicant's evidence to the advisor's public work.
• Do not use generic filler or flattery-heavy writing.
• Do not overstate fit, expertise, or certainty.
• Do not claim the professor is recruiting unless the source explicitly says so.
• Do not imply admission likelihood.

Scoring Guidance

Use the 100-point rubric in rubrics/match_scoring.md.

Default grouping:

• Strong: 78 to 100, with medium or high confidence.
• Medium: 60 to 77, or high score with important uncertainty.
• Stretch: 40 to 59, or any candidate with low confidence but plausible upside.
• Not recommended: below 40, or clear mismatch.

These thresholds are decision aids. Explain exceptions.

Email Style

Write emails that are:

• Concise.
• Evidence-based.
• Academically natural.
• Specific to the advisor.
• Clear about the applicant's research direction.
• Light on flattery.
• Honest about uncertainty.
• Respectful of the advisor's time.

Main draft target length: 150 to 220 words.

Every email should include:

• A clear subject line.
• One-sentence applicant context.
• One or two evidence-backed reasons for fit.
• A concise description of relevant applicant work.
• A light next step, such as asking whether the professor is considering PhD students or whether a brief conversation would be appropriate.
• An attachment note only if the user has supplied a CV or research summary.

Never auto-send emails. Never instruct the model or user to mass-mail.

Recommended Response Structure

When screening multiple targets, use:

1. Applicant profile summary.
2. Data quality notes.
3. Ranked advisor table.
4. Strong, medium, stretch grouping.
5. Detailed scorecards for top targets.
6. Email drafts for selected targets.
7. Manual review checklist.

When drafting for one advisor, use:

1. Evidence summary.
2. Fit score and confidence.
3. Risk note.
4. Subject line.
5. Main email draft.
6. Shorter variant.
7. Manual verification items.

Human Review Requirement

Before sending any email, the user must manually verify:

• Advisor name, title, and email address.
• Current institution and lab affiliation.
• Recent research direction.
• Whether the advisor is accepting students, if stated publicly.
• Any paper, project, dataset, or lab name mentioned.
• Applicant claims and attachments.

If verification is not possible, keep the email more general and mark confidence low.