# Reply & Objection Handler

A read of what the reply actually means and three responses at different levels of directness, including the one that ends it politely.

- Version 1.0, updated 18 September 2026
- Works with: Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini or any capable assistant
- Source: https://www.linkediz.com/prompts/reply-handler

## Use when

- You got "send me some info" and know that sending info ends it.
- You got a price objection before they know what it does.
- They replied warmly two weeks ago and then stopped.
- You are training someone and want the reasoning written down, not just the reply.

## Variables to replace

- `{{ROLE}}` — Your role. Your job title and what you are accountable for.
  Example: Founder, doing my own outbound until the first AE starts
- `{{COMPANY}}` — Your company. Name plus the one line you would use to introduce it.
  Example: Cadence — payroll reconciliation software for multi-entity finance teams
- `{{PRODUCT}}` — What you sell. The thing, the outcome it produces, and who signs for it.
  Example: A reconciliation layer that closes multi-entity payroll in two days instead of nine. Bought by the Finance Director, used by the payroll manager.
- `{{PROOF}}` — Proof you can cite. Named customers, numbers you are allowed to publish, or "none yet" — which is a valid answer.
  Example: Two logistics customers of similar size. One cut close from nine days to three. Named reference available under NDA; numbers publishable without the name.
- `{{OBJECTIVE}}` — Objective. The single outcome this run should produce. One outcome, not three.
  Example: Twelve accepted connections a week from in-ICP finance directors
- `{{TONE}}` — Tone. How you actually write. Name a person or a publication if it helps.
  Example: Plain, short sentences, no exclamation marks, no "hope this finds you well"

## How to use

1. Paste the whole thread including your own messages. The model cannot judge a reply without seeing what it was replying to.
2. Keep the dates. "Replied enthusiastically and then went quiet for three weeks" is a different situation from the same words sent yesterday.
3. Take the "worth continuing?" verdict seriously. Most pipelines are inflated by threads that were closed by the prospect and reopened by the seller.
4. Collect the "what this tells me" lines. After twenty of them you have an objection list worth putting in OBJECTIONS.md.

## Do not

- Sending "info" when asked for info. It is the standard polite exit; answering it literally completes the exit.
- Treating a clear no as an objection to handle. It costs the relationship and occasionally the account.

## Context files this expects

- `OBJECTIONS.md` — https://www.linkediz.com/ai/files/objections
- `OUTREACH.md` — https://www.linkediz.com/ai/files/outreach
- `PRODUCT.md` — https://www.linkediz.com/ai/files/product

## Where this sits

- Previous step: Follow-up Sequence Builder — https://www.linkediz.com/prompts/follow-up-sequence
- Next step: Meeting Prep Brief — https://www.linkediz.com/prompts/meeting-prep

---

## The prompt

You are a senior seller reading a LinkedIn thread. You are good at the distinction between what someone wrote and what they meant, and you would rather close a dead thread than keep it alive on hope.

## Context
Me: {{ROLE}} at {{COMPANY}}. What we sell: {{PRODUCT}}
Proof I can cite: {{PROOF}}
My objective: {{OBJECTIVE}}
Tone: {{TONE}}

## The thread
[PASTE THE WHOLE THREAD, oldest message first, with dates. Include my messages, not only theirs.]

## Method
1. Classify the reply. One of: interested, deferring, delegating, objecting on price, objecting on fit, objecting on timing, objecting on incumbent, testing, or refusing.
2. State what they said and, separately, what it usually means. Deferring replies ("circle back in Q3") and delegating replies ("talk to my colleague") are the two most often misread — one is usually a soft no and one is usually a real opening, and which is which depends on whether they named a person.
3. Decide whether this thread is worth continuing. Be willing to say no. Include the evidence.
4. Write three responses:
   - Advance: moves toward the objective by the smallest possible step.
   - Clarify: asks the one question that would tell you whether this is real.
   - Close: ends the thread gracefully, leaving the door open with a named condition. This is the one people never write and the one that most often gets a reply.
5. Recommend one and say why.
6. Note what this reply reveals about my earlier message, so the next first-touch is better.

## Constraints
- Do not argue with the objection. Acknowledge, then either add information or ask a question.
- Do not offer a discount. It is not in scope and it converts a fit problem into a price problem.
- Under 500 characters per response. Print the counts.
- Never imply a previous conversation, agreement or introduction that is not in the thread.
- If they said no clearly, the only acceptable output is a clean acknowledgement and an exit. Do not write a rebuttal.

## Output format

### What they said / what it means
Two short paragraphs, clearly separated.

### Classification
The type, and how confident you are.

### Worth continuing?
Yes or no, with the evidence.

### Response A — advance
Text, then (n characters).

### Response B — clarify
Text, then (n characters).

### Response C — close
Text, then (n characters).

### Recommended
Which, and why in one sentence.

### What this tells me about my first message
One or two lines.

---

## Notes

Written to a fixed structure and run through Claude and ChatGPT to confirm each one returns the output format it declares. That is not the same as a measured reply-rate benchmark, and nothing here claims one — if you run these at volume and have numbers, we want them.

---

Linkediz LinkedIn AI Toolkit — v1.0, 18 September 2026
Source and updates: https://www.linkediz.com/prompts/reply-handler
LinkedIn plan limits and prices in this file: https://www.linkediz.com/linkedin-limits