How to Write a Recommendation Letter (When You Don't Know Them Well)
Saying yes was the easy part. Now you have to write something credible from limited material. Here's how to do it without faking depth.
They asked. You said yes — partly because you wanted to help, partly because saying no felt awkward. Now you're at the keyboard realizing you don't know them as well as the letter format assumes. You worked with them for a quarter, took one class together, met three times for coffee. You like them. You think they're good. But "good" with limited evidence makes for a thin letter, and a thin letter can hurt rather than help.
There's a way to write a credible letter from limited material without faking depth. The trick is to be honest about the resolution of your view and to make the most of what you actually saw. Below are five tactics that work.
Name the limited time clearly, then turn it into evidence
Open by naming the constraint honestly: "I worked with Lina for one quarter on the [specific project]." The reader's first thought is "can this person speak credibly to her work?" Address it directly. Then convert the limited window into specific evidence: "In that quarter, what struck me most was..." The brevity becomes a feature when you're explicit that everything you say comes from a defined, observable period. The pretense of long acquaintance is what makes thin letters fall apart; honesty about scope makes them solid.
Pick one thing they did and write about it specifically
If you only have a few interactions to draw from, pick the most diagnostic one and write about it in detail. The single project where you saw their thinking. The conversation where they asked a question that surprised you. The presentation where you noticed their preparation. One specific scene with concrete details is worth a paragraph of generalities — and it's the kind of evidence that proves you actually know them rather than padding the letter.
Speak to qualities you actually observed, not the full set
Resist the urge to comment on every standard rec-letter quality (work ethic, intelligence, kindness, leadership, etc.). Pick the two or three you actually saw. "In our work together, I observed [X and Y] directly. I cannot speak to [Z] from limited exposure." The selectivity is honest and makes the qualities you do endorse hit harder. Letters that claim to have observed everything across a short relationship are obviously inflated; readers discount them accordingly.
Use the letter to recommend a specific path, not a general one
If you don't know them well enough to vouch for them broadly, vouch for a specific situation. "Based on our work together, I would confidently recommend her for any role that involves [the specific skill she demonstrated]." "I think she's well-suited to programs that emphasize [the specific quality]." The narrow endorsement is more credible than the broad one and is often more useful — it tells the reader exactly where this letter applies, and they can weigh it accordingly.
Encourage them to find a stronger letter, when honest
If you genuinely can't write a strong letter from limited material, the kind move is to suggest someone better. Send a brief, direct note: "I'm happy to write a letter, but I want to be honest — I worked with you for a short period, and a letter from [more senior person who knows them better] would carry more weight. I can do either." People asking for recommendations often don't realize the strongest letter comes from depth of knowledge, not status. Helping them aim better is a real form of support.
A credible letter from limited material
Ghost Writer takes what you actually observed, the specific path they're applying for, and your honest scope — and produces a letter that's strong because it's accurate, not because it overreaches.