User report · Tool workflows
Draft follow-ups for stalled unsigned proposals
Source-backed example. Practical decision guidance is proposed and untested; this is not a full implementation guide.
The problem
Unsigned proposals can sit unnoticed when follow-up depends on remembering which opportunities have stalled and what was last promised.
Agent job
Check proposal status each business morning and draft follow-up messages for proposals that remain unsigned.
Expected output
Proposal follow-up drafts for owner editing and sending.
Where this framing comes from
- Core problem: Editorial purpose framing
- Agent job: Editorial purpose framing
- Expected output: Editorial purpose framing
- Relevant job roles: Editorial purpose framing
- Benefit type: Editorial purpose framing
Editorial framing and outcome limits
Describes the task’s purpose and intended output; measured benefit, safe unsupervised operation and successful delivery are not established by this framing.
Editorial synthesis based on the linked source. This framing does not add evidence of successful delivery or results.
Case-specific decision guidance · untested
Case-specific decision guidance and first checks are original proposals. The linked source supports the attributed task; this added guidance has not been executed.
Read the attributed source evidence and original caveats below ↓
Why use this
A service owner may remember a promising conversation but lose track of whether a proposal was signed, declined or simply left unanswered. Reopening each thread can make follow-up inconsistent.
A draft queue could bring the proposal state and last commitment together before the owner decides what to say. Its value depends on avoiding reminders that contradict a recent response.
Why an agent / simpler alternative
- Useful judgment
Distinguish silence from an agreed pause and tailor a draft to the last unresolved question.
- Simpler alternative
Use date-based reminders when proposal states and follow-up wording are uniform.
- Unsuitable when
Status records are stale or the owner cannot review outgoing commitments.
Proposed inputs
- Name
Proposal register
- Owner
Sales owner
- Minimum scope
Proposal ID, recipient, state and last update
- Quality check
Check state against the authoritative proposal record.
- Name
Recent correspondence
- Owner
Sales owner
- Minimum scope
Only the relevant proposal thread and promised next step
- Quality check
Include latest replies and agreed pause dates.
Access and setup — proposed or unknown
- Proposed minimum
Read-only proposal and thread snapshots; private draft destination.
- Compatibility unknowns
Unknown: exact runtime, proposal-status access and scheduling support.
- External actions requiring approval
Sending follow-ups, changing proposal terms or enrolling recipients in recurring outreach.
Expected deliverable and review checks
- Proposed artifact
Draft queue with proposal ID, evidence date, follow-up rationale and exclusions.
- Critical checks
Recipient and proposal version agree.
Draft preserves promised timing and contains no invented discount or deadline.
- Missing output evidence
No actual draft quality, delivery result or conversion outcome is established.
Failure signals and proposed responses
- Signal
Unsigned record has a later acceptance email.
- Why it matters
A reminder could confuse an active customer.
- Proposed response
Exclude it and ask the owner to reconcile status.
- Signal
The thread says to reconnect after a specified event.
- Why it matters
Immediate outreach would ignore the relationship context.
- Proposed response
Defer the draft and show the condition rather than inventing a date.
Effort and cost — unknown
- Setup work
Define stalled-state criteria and the authoritative status source.
- Ongoing review
Resolve conflicts and edit drafts before sending.
- Unknowns
Unknown: runtime charges, thread volume and status freshness.
First check — proposed, unexecuted
- Status
proposed_unexecuted
- Synthetic fixture
Three fictional unsigned proposals: unanswered, accepted by email, and explicitly paused until a later month.
- Acceptance checks
Only the unanswered proposal receives a candidate draft for owner review.
Other records carry clear exclusion reasons.
- Stop conditions
Status or intended recipient cannot be reconciled.
Limits
Editorial draft-only check; cadence effectiveness and current platform compatibility are unknown.
Editorial candidate. This is source-backed reporting or a documented workflow. BotCurrent has not independently tested this task. A proposed Canadian adaptation is not evidence of a Canadian deployment or compliance certification.
Original source
https://www.reddit.com/r/hermesagent/comments/1v9vpo1/my_hermes_agent_setup_for_running_the_office_side/ ↗Attributed to: u/chrisaumen, Aumen Film Co
User report- Original action type
- tool_action
- What the source supports
- Sales profile checks proposal status each business morning and drafts follow-up messages for proposals remaining unsigned.
- Source outcome limits
- Actions and outcomes are attributed user reports, not an independent reproduction or an execution guarantee.
- Evidence attribution caveat
- Actions and outcomes are attributed user reports, not an independent reproduction or an execution guarantee.
- Source approval description
- Owner edits and sends follow-ups.
- Named tools
- Hermes Agent profiles, scheduled workflows
- Model or version
- Unknown
- Publication date
- Unknown
- Source last checked
- 2026-10-14
- Demonstrated in Canada
- Unknown
- Canadian availability
- Unknown
- Proposed Canadian adaptation
- Proposed only: verify permitted business follow-up, correct recipient and Canadian communication requirements.
- Recommended approval boundaries
- Review tone, status and recipient before sending; no new commercial terms without owner approval.