Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-12
Reply to an unsolicited recruiter message without wasting time on a mismatched role
Drafts a reply to an inbound recruiter message that quickly establishes fit or mismatch, so you don't end up three emails deep into a role that was never right, and gives you a template for the polite decline as well as the genuine-interest version.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
A recruiter reached out to me about a role. Before I write anything back, help me figure out whether this is actually worth pursuing, then draft the right kind of reply. THE RECRUITER'S MESSAGE "Hi! I came across your profile and think you'd be a great fit for an exciting Senior Engineer role at a fast-growing startup. Would you be open to a quick chat this week?" MY CURRENT SITUATION AND WHAT I'M ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR Only considering fully remote roles, minimum $160k base, staff-level or above, not interested in early-stage pre-seed startups. RULES First, assess fit against what I actually said I'm looking for — not against whether the role sounds impressive in the abstract. If the recruiter's message is too vague to assess (no real details on comp, level, or scope, just "exciting opportunity"), say that plainly and draft a reply that asks for the specific missing details before I commit any more time, rather than a reply that politely proceeds on incomplete information. If the role is a clear mismatch against my stated criteria, draft a brief, polite decline that doesn't over-explain or apologize excessively — a short, clear no preserves the relationship better than a long justification the recruiter didn't ask for. If the role looks like a plausible fit, draft a reply expressing real interest that asks 2-3 specific qualifying questions before agreeing to a call — the questions should be things that would change whether I proceed, not generic questions I'd ask anyway once on the call. WHAT NOT TO DO Do not draft a reply that agrees to "hop on a quick call" before basic fit questions (comp range, level, location/remote policy) are answered, if the recruiter's original message didn't already cover them — getting on a call to learn information that could have been an email exchange wastes both people's time. Do not write an enthusiastic reply to a role that doesn't match my stated criteria just because the recruiter's message sounded flattering. OUTPUT FORMAT 1. A one-line fit assessment (good fit / mismatch / too vague to tell). 2. The drafted reply matching that assessment. 3. If qualifying questions were included, a one-line note on why each one matters enough to ask before a call.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
Assessing fit against the candidate's own stated criteria rather than the abstract appeal of the message matters because inbound recruiter messages are written to sound exciting regardless of actual fit — "exciting opportunity at a fast-growing startup" is boilerplate language that appears whether or not the role matches what the candidate is actually looking for, and a reply drafted from the tone of the message rather than the candidate's real requirements would happily walk them into a call for a role that was never viable. Instructing the model to flag a vague message rather than proceed politely on missing information addresses a specific time-cost problem in job searching: getting on an intro call only to learn in the first two minutes that the comp range or seniority level is wrong is a preventable waste that a well-placed email question would have avoided, so the reply has to actively surface that information gap rather than treating a call as free to schedule. Keeping the decline reply short and unapologetic rather than heavily justified reflects how professional rejections actually land — recruiters manage high volumes of both outbound and inbound conversations, and a long, over-explained decline reads as more effortful to read than a short one while providing no additional value to either party; a brief, clear no is the version that preserves the relationship for a future, better-matched role. Requiring that qualifying questions be ones that would actually change the decision to proceed, rather than generic questions the candidate would ask anyway on a call, keeps the email from becoming its own multi-round negotiation — the questions exist specifically to filter out a bad fit before a call happens, not to replace the call itself.
What you get back
Fit assessment: Too vague to tell. Reply: "Thanks for reaching out! Before scheduling a call, could you share a bit more detail — the seniority level for this role, whether it's fully remote, and a rough comp range? Want to make sure we're aligned before we spend time on a call."
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-12
Changelog
- 2026-08-12 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — what Scult builds, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE WHAT SCULT BUILDS
