twenty-partner-match

name: twenty-partner-match description: Match a qualified lead to Twenty partners and generate all intro emails in one run. Use when a lead folder exists and you need to find the right implementation partner, either after running twenty-partner-design-doc or standalone when partner-match-criteria.md is already present. Chains back into twenty-lead-intro-call-summary and twenty-partner-design-doc if the criteria file is missing. trigger: /twenty-partner-match

Match a qualified lead to Twenty partners and generate all intro emails in one run.

Chains after twenty-lead-intro-call-summary → twenty-partner-design-doc. Can be run standalone if partner-match-criteria.md already exists in the lead folder.

Credentials

Before running, ~/.twenty/credentials.env must exist with:

TWENTY_PARTNERS_API_URL=https://partners.twenty.com
TWENTY_PARTNERS_API_KEY=<your key>

# Only needed if the input is a Fireflies link/ID
FIREFLIES_API_KEY=<your key>

The partners API key lives in packages/twenty-apps/internal/twenty-partners/.env.prod (gitignored) — copy it to ~/.twenty/credentials.env on first setup. The skill reads credentials.env at startup and stops cleanly if a required key is missing.

Phase 0 — Prerequisites

0a. Credentials check

Read ~/.twenty/credentials.env. Verify TWENTY_PARTNERS_API_URL and TWENTY_PARTNERS_API_KEY are present. If not, stop and tell the user exactly which key is missing and where to add it.

0b. Brief check

Look for partner-match-criteria.md in the lead folder.

If missing: Ask the user what is available — a text transcript, a Fireflies meeting ID/URL, or an existing call summary or brief. Then chain:

Fireflies input → fetch transcript via Fireflies API (requires FIREFLIES_API_KEY) → /twenty-lead-intro-call-summary → /twenty-partner-design-doc
Text transcript → /twenty-lead-intro-call-summary → /twenty-partner-design-doc
Existing summary → /twenty-partner-design-doc

partner-match-criteria.md is produced by /twenty-partner-design-doc as Step 8.

If present — be critical before proceeding. Read the file and assess quality:

Are there at least 2 hard requirements with justification?
Is the language requirement explicit?
Are the required skills specific enough to differentiate partners (e.g. "self-hosted Docker" beats "technical")?
Are there red flags listed?

If the brief is thin on any of these axes, say so and ask targeted follow-up questions before querying the API. A match built on a vague brief is noise. Only proceed once the criteria are solid enough to produce a meaningful ranking.

Phase 1 — Matching

1a. Fetch candidates

Query the partners API:

query ListPartners($after: String) {
  partners(
    filter: {
      validationStage: { eq: VALIDATED }
      availability: { eq: AVAILABLE }
    }
    after: $after
  ) {
    pageInfo {
      hasNextPage
      endCursor
    }
    edges {
      node {
        id name slug languagesSpoken skills deploymentExpertise
        partnerScope partnerTier country region city introduction
        persons { edges { node { name { firstName lastName } emails { primaryEmail } } } }
        company { id name }
      }
    }
  }
}

Paginate until pageInfo.hasNextPage is false, passing pageInfo.endCursor as $after each iteration. Endpoint: $TWENTY_PARTNERS_API_URL/graphql.

1b. Evaluate and rank

Evaluate every candidate against the criteria in partner-match-criteria.md. Apply hard requirements as eliminators first (a partner missing a hard requirement does not appear in results, even with a note). Then rank remaining candidates by fit across:

Language (primary) — exact match on languagesSpoken
Skills and expertise (primary) — semantic match: "ERP experience" is relevant to complex billing, "self-hosted Docker" maps to SELF_HOST deploymentExpertise, etc.
Country / region (secondary) — proximity helps but is not a blocker unless the criteria say otherwise

1c. Present results

Show at minimum 2 candidates, more if others score well. For each:

## [Partner name] — [fort / moyen / faible]

**Pourquoi ça matche**
- point 1
- point 2
- point 3

**Ce qui manque ou est risqué**
- point

**Contacts** : [name, email if available]

Be honest. If only one candidate is a strong match, say so and explain why the others are weaker — don't artificially inflate scores to fill a quota.

1d. Pause for validation

Ask the user which partners to introduce. They can pick one, several, or none (and ask to search differently). Wait for explicit confirmation before generating emails.

Phase 2 — Emails

For each confirmed partner, generate three email types. For N confirmed partners, the total is 1 + 2N emails.

Email rules (always applied)

English by default. Write all emails in English unless the lead clearly operates in another language (e.g. a French lead) — then match it. Tutoiement only applies when writing in French.
Keep it short. Aim for 4-6 sentences, never more than a short screen. Cut throat-clearing, recaps the recipient already knows, and anything the attached brief covers. If a sentence isn't doing work, drop it.
Intros are launched in parallel — frame them as already happening, not as a request for permission. Never write "may I introduce you" / "si c'est ok pour toi je te présente" or any permission-asking phrasing. State that the intro(s) are going out.
No em dashes (—) — use : or , instead
Sign: Cheers,\nRashad\nPartnerships @twenty
Subject prefix: [Twenty]
No self-introduction for partner emails (they know who Rashad is)
Open in Gmail via https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&to=...&su=...&body=... using open -a "Google Chrome"

Email 1 — Client notification (one per run)

This is a reply to the existing client thread, not a new draft. Don't open a Gmail compose for it and don't invent a subject — output the body text only so the user pastes it as a reply in the ongoing thread. No re-introduction (it's an existing conversation).

Content: announce that the intro(s) are going out, in parallel, to [agency name(s)] who'll reach out directly. No permission-asking, no recap.

Email 2 per partner — Solo partner outreach

To: partner contact email (from persons → emails.primaryEmail; leave blank if none found)
Subject: [Twenty] Partner opportunity: [Client], [one-line project description]
Content: why this opportunity matches their profile, project complexity (custom objects, deployment, migration, seats), invite them to respond or get on a call, brief to attach

Email 3 per partner — Three-way intro

To: partner contact email
CC: client email
Subject: [Twenty] [Client] x [Partner]: CRM project
Content: introduce client to partner (one sentence each), project in two sentences, brief to attach, hand off

Opening in Gmail

Open the partner emails only (Email 2 and Email 3) as new Gmail drafts, sequentially with a 1.5s delay between each. Email 1 is a reply to the existing client thread — output its text for the user to paste, don't open a compose window. Use Python:

import subprocess, urllib.parse, time, sys
params = {"view": "cm", "fs": "1", "to": to, "su": subject, "body": body}
if cc: params["cc"] = cc
url = "https://mail.google.com/mail/?" + urllib.parse.urlencode(params)
if sys.platform == "darwin":
    subprocess.run(["open", "-a", "Google Chrome", url])
else:
    # Linux / Windows: fall back to the system default browser
    import webbrowser
    webbrowser.open(url)
time.sleep(1.5)

Remind the user to attach YYYY-MM-DD-<lead>-partner-brief.md to all partner emails before sending.

Output files

Save email content as text files in the lead folder for reference:

email-1-client.txt
email-2-<partner-slug>-solo.txt
email-3-<partner-slug>-intro.txt

Use the partner's slug field for filenames.

Chain context

This skill is the third step in the Twenty partner pipeline:

/twenty-lead-intro-call-summary → /twenty-partner-design-doc → /twenty-partner-match

The partner-match-criteria.md produced by /twenty-partner-design-doc (Step 8) is this skill's primary input. Keep the criteria file updated as you learn more about the lead — it feeds both this skill and the eventual in-product matching logic.