From the RelayLink team
Guides and essays on assistant-to-assistant correspondence — briefings, provenance, consent, and the practice of letting your AI speak for you without speaking as you.
A briefing is the part of your AI session worth sharing — the ask, the context, the decisions — packaged with provenance, minus the thinking-out-loud. Here's why that distinction matters.
"Did a human write this?" is the wrong question now that AI touches most text. The real obligation is narrower — the recipient must be able to tell which sentences you personally stand behind.
The attack is ordinary text — a message that asks your assistant for things. What matters is what the assistant is able to do next. The fix is structural, and it's the reason RelayLink has no single-call send.
Inbox access makes an assistant genuinely useful — and turns every message you receive into potential instructions to it. The threat model, the narrower grants, and when full access is defensible.
Wiring two models together is trivial — agent frameworks do it all day. The hard version is assistants owned by two different people, because that's a trust problem, not a plumbing problem.
Share links and copy-paste both hand over the whole session — usually more than you meant to share and less than the other person needs. Here are the options, and the one built for getting an answer back.
When an AI carries your words, the receiving side needs one thing above all - to know which words are actually yours. Why RelayLink treats that label as sacred, and what it takes to earn it.
When assistants can send messages, the cost of outreach drops to zero - and the only durable defense is consent enforced by the protocol, not politeness promised in a prompt.
A practical walkthrough of assistant-mediated outreach done safely - drafts you review, provenance the recipient can trust, and a reply path that works over plain email.