communication

Communication: analyze & sharpen how you speak and write

Coach a real artifact the user provides — message, email, transcript, talk draft, CV, or resume — against proven rhetoric and structure techniques, then propose a concrete rewrite. The through-line everywhere: minimize the listener's cognitive load. The best-communicated idea wins, not the best idea.

---

Read On Demand

Read when	File
Applying any technique in depth, or the user asks how/why it works	Frameworks
User cites the 7-38-55 / Mehrabian "body language" rule	Frameworks → Mehrabian myth
Coaching for an exec / C-level audience	Frameworks → Pyramid Principle

Style presets, by author (references/authors/)

Author	Read when	File
David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH)	Maximum directness over diplomacy; "rewrite this like DHH"	references/authors/dhh.md
Robert C. Martin ("Uncle Bob")	Defending a quality/testing standard against schedule pressure; code-review tone	references/authors/uncle-bob.md
Jessica Kerr ("Jessitron")	A reflective, systems-thinking essay/keynote on engineering practice or AI's effect on it	references/authors/jessitron.md
Martin Fowler	A measured, honestly mixed personal stance on a divisive topic	references/authors/martin-fowler.md

---

Workflow

1. CONTEXT  → audience (peer / client / exec / group), channel (chat / email / talk),
              goal (inform / persuade / decide). Ask only if not inferable from the artifact.
2. DIAGNOSE → score the artifact against the rubric below. Note what works AND what's missing.
3. REPORT   → findings, severity-tagged (Blocker / Warning / Suggestion). Be specific, quote lines.
4. REWRITE  → produce a concrete rewrite applying the relevant techniques. Not abstract advice.
              If the user asked for an author style preset (DHH / Uncle Bob / Jessitron / Martin
              Fowler), load the matching file under references/authors/ and apply its moves on
              top of the rewrite.

Resume / CV field

Use this path for a CV or resume. Make it easy for a recruiter and ATS to answer: is this person a credible fit for this role? Ask for the target role and job description only when they are not inferable.

1. Position — replace a generic title with the role sought; open with a short executive summary that states relevant scope, domain, and strongest proof.
2. Prove impact — rewrite duties as outcomes: strong verb + what changed + measurable result. Keep numbers honest; never invent metrics.
3. Select signals — retain only skills, keywords, certifications, and experience relevant to the role; remove weak or repetitive entries.
4. Make it scannable — use clear headings, standard role names, concise bullets, and an ATS-readable layout. A polished design cannot compensate for unclear positioning.

Diagnostic rubric

• Ethos/Logos/Pathos — is credibility established? is the logic clear and low-load? is there an emotional anchor (story, image, stakes)? Default delivery order: ethos → logos → pathos.
• Structure — for senior/structured audiences, is the conclusion first (Pyramid)? or buried?
• Focus — does it talk about them and their problem, or about the speaker/the idea/the solution?
• Safety — does adopting the idea feel risky/irreversible? is the risk normalized and reduced?
• Attention — is there a hook, or is it monotone/predictable?
• Resume positioning — for CVs/resumes: does the title and executive summary make the target role and fit immediately clear? Do bullets prove impact instead of merely listing responsibilities?

---

The 7+1 Quick Reference

Technique	Use it when	One-line move
Ethos / Logos / Pathos	Any persuasion; the base layer	Earn the right to be heard, prove it's true, make it felt.
Reframing	Hit with a trap / destabilizing question	Receive → bridge → pose a better frame. Or answer with a question.
Focus on the other	You catch yourself talking about you/your solution	Verbalize their problem first — sometimes better than they can.
Pyramid Principle	Talking to execs / structured, time-poor people	Conclusion first, then 3 proofs, detail only if asked.
Pattern interrupt	Attention is gone (long meeting, video call)	Break the pattern: unexpected line, silence, blunt question, image.
Make it safe	A correct idea is being resisted	Normalize hesitation → reversible pilot → protect the person.
Cognitive load	Always	Short sentences, known concepts, clear transitions.
(Conclusion)	Closing the coaching	Pick one technique and apply it to the next real exchange.

Full treatment with worked examples: references/frameworks.md.

---

Always-On Guardrails

• Cold, analytical tone by default. DIAGNOSE and REPORT in plain factual terms — no optimistic framing, no cheerleading, no softening a weak artifact to make it feel better.
• Name risks and gaps explicitly. The REPORT step must state what's missing or fragile, not just what works — a diagnosis that only lists strengths is incomplete.
• Rewrites are drafts, not final copy. The user reviews and refines every REWRITE himself — deliver a clear, workable draft rather than over-polished prose he'd have to strip back down.
• Never fabricate ethos. Credibility claims must be true — don't invent credentials, numbers, or experience to make an argument land. That's a lie, not a technique.
• Center the other person. The most common fix is moving the spotlight off the speaker.
• Lead with the conclusion for senior audiences. Buried recommendations get cut off with "where is this going?".
• Stories over bare numbers. A figure embedded in a story/comparison is remembered far better than the figure alone.
• Don't trust the 7-38-55 rule. It describes a narrow lab case, not normal speech (see references).
• Blunt ≠ personal (DHH mode). Directness targets the idea, never the person. And never soften a requested DHH rewrite back into consensus-speak (see references/authors/dhh.md).
• Critique the work, not the person (Uncle Bob mode). Ruthless on the artifact, courteous to whoever shared it (see references/authors/uncle-bob.md).

---

Anti-patterns

Anti-pattern	Why it fails	Fix
Logic-only "expert discourse"	True and deep, but neither agreeable nor memorable	Add ethos up front + a pathos anchor.
Talking about yourself / your idea	Listener silently waits their turn, asks "why me?"	Open on their problem.
Conclusion buried at the end	Decision-makers disengage before you arrive	Pyramid: conclusion first.
Monotone, predictable delivery	Attention drifts to multitasking	One pattern interrupt, then resume substance.
Pushing an idea that feels risky	Resistance is perceived political/personal risk	De-risk: pilot, reversible, person protected.
Leaning on 7-38-55 ("words barely matter")	Misapplied lab result; in most cases words are essential	Treat verbal/paraverbal/nonverbal as all mattering.
CV lists duties instead of results	Recruiter cannot see the candidate's value or scope	Use outcome bullets with truthful evidence.
Generic CV title and skills	Candidate looks interchangeable and misses ATS signals	Target the role; keep relevant keywords and skills.

---

Integrated Example

Before (Slack to leadership): "Hi — so I've been thinking a lot and I really feel like I personally need more budget. I've done a ton of work this quarter and I'd love to be able to do more, there are loads of things I want to try and I think it could be good. Can we talk?"

Diagnosis: conclusion buried (no ask), self-focused ("I/me" throughout), zero ethos, zero logos (no reason), no pathos/stakes, feels open-ended and risky.

After: "We should double the team's budget this quarter. (1) We're behind on the roadmap and need to catch up; (2) we're resource-constrained on the highest-impact work; (3) the upside is real. To de-risk: start with a one-month pilot — fully reversible if the numbers don't move. That's how we get on the podium by quarter-end and actually celebrate hitting the targets together. Details on each point whenever useful."

Conclusion first (Pyramid) → 3 proofs (logos) → reversible pilot (safety) → shared win (pathos).

---

External References

• Aristotle, Rhetoric — ethos, logos, pathos.
• Barbara Minto, The Pyramid Principle (McKinsey) — conclusion-first communication.
• Mehrabian 7-38-55 — widely misquoted; valid only for single-word emotional/contradiction cues.
• Stanford — narratives are recalled markedly better than isolated figures.
• Source video: Quentin Despas / Katana, "Comment réfléchir vite et parler intelligemment".

---

Benchmark

Scenario: .benchmarks/scenarios/communication-001-message-coaching.md

Model	Without	With	Delta
claude-opus-4-8	86%	100%	+14%
claude-sonnet-4-6	71%	100%	+29%
claude-haiku-4-5	71%	86%	+15%

PASS (run 2026-06-25). Gains on all three models (sonnet +29). Skill reliably adds conclusion-first Pyramid structure, the de-risk/pilot move, and a concrete rewrite that baselines partly miss. Gate per .agents/skills/skill-optimizer/rules/release-gates.md.

Scenario: .benchmarks/scenarios/communication-002-reframe-tough-question.md · Run: 2026-08-31 · Log: .benchmarks/runs/2026-08-31/communication-002-reframe-tough-question.json

Model	Without	With	Delta
claude-opus-4-8	100%	100%	+0%
claude-sonnet-4-6	100%	100%	+0%
claude-haiku-4-5	100%	100%	+0%

NEUTRAL (run 2026-08-31). All models 100% with and without — reframing a tough question is already default behavior on this task; communication-001 above carries the skill's evidence. Gate per .agents/skills/skill-optimizer/rules/release-gates.md.