---
name: reference-request-kit
description: "Secure strong references after a departure — who to ask, the ask messages, the briefing sheet that makes their reference specific, and the LinkedIn recommendation swap. Use when asked to help me get references, write a reference request, prep my referee, or ask my old manager for a recommendation. Produces the referee shortlist with rationale, tailored ask messages, a one-page referee briefing sheet, and the follow-up etiquette."
homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/reference-request-kit.html
metadata:
  {
    "openclaw": { "emoji": "🧠" }
  }
---

# Reference Request Kit Skill

A reference is a performance by someone else on your behalf — and performers do better with a script. This skill picks the right referees, makes the ask easy to say yes to, and (the step everyone skips) *briefs* them so the reference is specific instead of warmly vague.

## What This Skill Produces

- **The referee shortlist** — who, for which claim, with the risk notes (the lukewarm reference is worse than none)
- **Ask messages** — tailored per relationship, each with an easy out
- **The briefing sheet** — one page per referee: the role, the two stories to tell, the numbers to cite
- **Logistics** — timing, the heads-up-per-use rule, and the LinkedIn swap

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
- **The circumstances** — layoff, resignation, complicated exit (this shapes who's safe to ask)
- **Candidate referees** — names, roles, relationship, and honestly: how warm is each?
- **The target roles** — references are chosen per claim the next job needs proven
- **The stories** — 2–3 achievements each referee actually witnessed (a referee can't cite what they never saw)

## Framework

1. **Coverage, not seniority:** pick referees per *claim* — one for craft, one for collaboration, one for outcomes. A direct manager who watched the work beats a VP who recognizes the name.
2. **The lukewarm test:** if you're not certain the reference is enthusiastic, it isn't. Ask candidates first: "would you be comfortable giving a strong reference?" — the wording that lets tepid people decline.
3. **The ask has an out:** every request includes a graceful no ("totally understand if the timing's wrong"). Cornered referees give cornered references.
4. **The briefing sheet is the skill:** referees improvise badly. One page: the target role, the two witnessed stories with numbers, the claim this reference supports, and what the checker will likely ask.
5. **Per-use heads-up:** referees get warned before each company calls — name, role, what to emphasize. A surprised referee sounds like an unprepared one.

## Output Format

# Reference Kit: [name] → [target role type]

## Shortlist
| Referee | Covers the claim | Warmth (honest) | Risk note |
|---|---|---|---|

## The asks
[Per referee: the message, in their relationship's register, with the out built in]

## Briefing sheet — [referee]
**Role I'm pursuing:** … **The claim you can speak to:** … **Two stories you saw:** [with numbers] **They may ask:** …

## Logistics
[Timing, the per-use heads-up template, the thank-you regardless of outcome, the LinkedIn recommendation swap offer]

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Every target-role claim has a referee who witnessed it
- [ ] Warmth is assessed honestly and lukewarm candidates are cut or comfort-tested
- [ ] Every ask contains a graceful out
- [ ] Each briefing sheet cites only what that referee actually saw
- [ ] The per-use heads-up template exists

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not rank referees by title — checkers discount name-recognizers who can't give specifics
- [ ] Do not send one generic ask to everyone — the relationship register is the persuasion
- [ ] Do not skip the briefing sheet — unprepared enthusiasm comes out as "great person to work with," which checkers hear as nothing
- [ ] Do not put words in a referee's mouth they can't own — briefing is reminding, not scripting fiction
- [ ] Do not burn a complicated-exit bridge by asking the wrong person — the risk notes exist to be read