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.
Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.
Use reference-request-kit to prepare a referee shortlist, tailored ask messages with graceful outs, briefing sheets, and follow-up etiquette for [departure circumstances], [candidate referees and witnessed achievements], and [target roles].
Required inputs
[departure circumstances]
[candidate referees and witnessed achievements]
[target roles]
User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗
SKILL.md
name: reference-request-kitdescription: "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."
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
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.
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.
The ask has an out: every request includes a graceful no ("totally understand if the timing's wrong"). Cornered referees give cornered references.
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.
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