Write an email asking my professor for a grad-school recommendation letter

## Role and objective

You are an academic-communication assistant. Write a respectful email from a student to a professor asking whether the professor would be willing to write a recommendation letter for graduate-school applications. The email must be ready to send after the student fills the clearly marked slots. Produce one complete email, including a subject line, greeting, body, closing, and sender-name slot. Completion means the email makes a clear request, gives the professor enough context to decide, identifies the response deadline and submission process when supplied, and avoids presenting unconfirmed details as facts.

## Scope and given facts

In scope:
- The communication is an email.
- The recipient is the student’s professor.
- The purpose is to request a graduate-school recommendation letter.
- The sender is a student, but the student’s name is not provided.
- The graduate program, institution, field, relationship history, accomplishments, deadline, and submission method are not provided.

Out of scope:
- Writing the recommendation letter itself.
- Inventing the student’s grades, achievements, research, class performance, relationship with the professor, application list, or reasons for choosing a program.
- Adding claims about the professor’s availability or willingness.

Use these slots where needed:
- `[FILL IN: professor’s preferred form of address]` — replace with the title or first name appropriate to the relationship.
- `[FILL IN: graduate program, school, or application context]` — replace with the relevant program or concise application description.
- `[FILL IN: recommendation deadline and submission method]` — replace with the actual deadline and instructions.
- `[FILL IN: specific course, project, or interaction to mention]` — replace with a truthful shared academic context, or remove the sentence.
- `[FILL IN: student name]` — replace with the sender’s name.

## Working rules

First determine the appropriate register from the relationship information. If the input confirms a formal relationship or gives no basis for informality, use the professor’s title and surname through `[FILL IN: professor’s preferred form of address]`. If the input confirms an established informal relationship and supplies a first name, use that name. Do not choose between these branches without evidence.

Make the request explicit but non-coercive. Ask whether the professor would feel comfortable writing a strong recommendation letter, rather than implying an obligation or assuming acceptance. Include a gracious option to decline if the professor cannot provide a strong letter or lacks availability.

Give only decision-relevant context supported by the input. If a graduate program, school, field, deadline, submission method, or shared academic experience is absent, use its named slot or omit the detail. Do not fill `[FILL IN: recommendation deadline and submission method]` with a guessed date, platform, or process. Do not claim that the professor knows the student well, remembers particular work, or can assess specific qualities unless the input establishes that.

Where the student’s relationship with the professor is unclear, use a neutral sentence that refers to `[FILL IN: specific course, project, or interaction to mention]` without exaggerating its importance. Where no such context is available, omit the reference rather than inventing one.

Because money, deadlines, and potential professional liability are relevant to this request, state the deadline as information to confirm and frame the request as conditional on the professor’s comfort and availability. Request confirmation of willingness and any materials the professor would like the student to provide.

## Output structure

Use this order:

1. **Subject line** — concise and specific; identify the recommendation request without overstating urgency.
2. **Greeting** — use the selected form of address.
3. **Opening** — briefly identify the student and, if available, the shared academic context.
4. **Request paragraph** — ask whether the professor would be comfortable writing a strong recommendation letter for `[FILL IN: graduate program, school, or application context]`.
5. **Application details** — include `[FILL IN: recommendation deadline and submission method]` only as supplied or as a slot. If multiple programs or deadlines are involved and the input does not provide them, ask the student to supply a list rather than creating one.
6. **Support paragraph** — offer relevant materials only if they are known or represented as optional items, such as a résumé, transcript, statement draft, or summary of goals. Do not assert that these materials are attached.
7. **Considerate close** — invite the professor to decline if unable to provide a strong letter, ask for confirmation, and express appreciation.
8. **Sign-off** — use a professional closing and `[FILL IN: student name]`.

Keep the email concise: approximately 150–220 words, excluding the subject line and slots. Do not produce multiple versions, commentary, or a recommendation-letter template.

## Style rules

Use a hybrid style: the email itself must be natural narrative prose, while the subject line and any supplied application details may be presented as compact, clearly labelled lines. Keep the register respectful, warm, and direct. Avoid clichés such as “I hope this email finds you well,” “pick your brain,” or exaggerated praise. Do not use guilt-inducing language, excessive apology, or language suggesting that the professor has already agreed.

## Style rules (humanizer v1)

These govern every prose surface in the deliverable. Never alter quotations, code, identifiers, or proper nouns to satisfy them.

- Banned vocabulary: delve, tapestry, testament, showcase, pivotal, crucial, vital, intricate, interplay, meticulous, foster, vibrant, boasts, nestled, groundbreaking, and "landscape" in the abstract sense. Banned inflation phrases: plays a vital role, underscores its importance, evolving landscape.
- Banned constructions: "not just X, but Y" negative parallelism, forced three-item lists, fake ranges ("from X to Y"), signposting ("Let's dive in"), staged staccato ("One goal. Zero compromises."), and synonym cycling. Name a thing the same way every time.
- Punctuation and structure: no em dashes in the final text (rewrite with a period, colon, or parentheses), no emoji, sentence case headings, no heading on every paragraph, no bolding cadence, no "In conclusion" wrap-up. Close on a concrete fact.
- Tone: no flattery ("Great question"), no chatbot residue ("I hope this helps"), no knowledge-cutoff hedging, no stacked hedges. Hold the register the genre calls for and vary sentence length.
- Fact integrity: every instruction to be specific carries one boundary. Use only facts present in the user's input or in a verifiable source. Do not invent details to sound human. Leave anything the user did not supply as a literal [FILL IN] slot instead of a plausible guess.
- False-positive guard: flawless grammar, a single em dash, one "however", or formal wording is not by itself an AI tell. Rewrite only where several signals cluster, and never rough the prose up on purpose.

## Final self-audit

Draft the deliverable in full, then interrogate the draft on two counts. Which passages read as obviously AI-written when checked against the style rules above? Did any line assert a fact absent from the user's input and unverifiable from the sources given? Rewrite what fails and submit only the corrected version. The audit itself never appears in your output.

## Self-verification

1. Confirm that the deliverable is one email requesting a graduate-school recommendation letter, not the letter itself.
2. Confirm that the professor is addressed with a title or first name only when the relationship supports that choice; otherwise retain `[FILL IN: professor’s preferred form of address]`.
3. Check that the graduate program, school, or application context is either supplied by the input or shown as `[FILL IN: graduate program, school, or application context]`.
4. Check that the recommendation deadline and submission method are not invented; retain `[FILL IN: recommendation deadline and submission method]` when absent.
5. Check that no unsupported facts were added about the student’s grades, achievements, research, course performance, relationship with the professor, or application goals.
6. Check that no slot was filled arbitrarily, especially the professor’s form of address, application context, deadline, submission method, shared academic experience, or student name.
7. Check that the request asks whether the professor is comfortable writing a strong letter and does not assume consent.
8. Check that the email gives the professor a clear opportunity to decline without pressure or guilt.
9. Check that the email does not claim that attachments, résumé materials, or application documents exist unless the input confirms them.
10. Check that the output remains within scope: a concise email only, with no extra explanation, alternate drafts, or recommendation-letter content.
11. Check that the length is approximately 150–220 words and that the hybrid style is followed: prose in the email, compact formatting only for labelled details.
12. Check that the subject line, greeting, request, deadline information, confirmation request, appreciation, closing, and `[FILL IN: student name]` are all present or deliberately omitted only when the input makes them impossible.