Communication: analyze & sharpen how you speak and write
Coach a real artifact the user provides — message, email, transcript, or talk draft — 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 |
| User asks for "DHH style" / maximum directness over diplomacy |
DHH style |
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 DHH style / max directness, load references/dhh-style.md
and apply its 6 moves on top of the rewrite.
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?
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
- 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/dhh-style.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. |
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.
1---2name: communication3description: Analyze a real communication artifact (Slack/Teams message, email, meeting transcript, pitch or presentation draft) and coach it sharper using seven rhetoric + structure techniques: ethos/logos/pathos, reframing tough questions, centering the other person, the Pyramid Principle, pattern interrupt, making ideas feel safe, and the cognitive-load through-line. Diagnose what works, what's missing, then rewrite. TRIGGER when: user wants to improve communication, "make this message clearer", "review my email/Slack", "analyze this transcript", prep for a meeting/pitch/presentation, "how do I say this", be more convincing / persuasive / assertive, handle a tough question, talk to executives, structure my idea, "is this too long-winded". Also trigger for style presets: "rewrite this like DHH" / "in the style of David Heinemeier Hansson" / "make it blunt/direct" (see references/dhh-style.md). DO NOT USE for raw text generation with no analysis, marketing/copywriting, translation, or code/docs — use `kano` for feature d4---56# Communication: analyze & sharpen how you speak and write78Coach a real artifact the user provides — message, email, transcript, or talk draft — against proven9rhetoric and structure techniques, then propose a concrete rewrite. The through-line everywhere:10**minimize the listener's cognitive load.** The best-communicated idea wins, not the best idea.1112---1314## Read On Demand1516| Read when | File |17| ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |18| Applying any technique in depth, or the user asks how/why it works | [Frameworks](references/frameworks.md) |19| User cites the 7-38-55 / Mehrabian "body language" rule | [Frameworks → Mehrabian myth](references/frameworks.md#7-the-7-38-55-mehrabian-myth) |20| Coaching for an exec / C-level audience | [Frameworks → Pyramid Principle](references/frameworks.md#4-pyramid-principle) |21| User asks for "DHH style" / maximum directness over diplomacy | [DHH style](references/dhh-style.md) |2223---2425## Workflow2627```281. CONTEXT → audience (peer / client / exec / group), channel (chat / email / talk),29 goal (inform / persuade / decide). Ask only if not inferable from the artifact.302. DIAGNOSE → score the artifact against the rubric below. Note what works AND what's missing.313. REPORT → findings, severity-tagged (Blocker / Warning / Suggestion). Be specific, quote lines.324. REWRITE → produce a concrete rewrite applying the relevant techniques. Not abstract advice.33 If the user asked for DHH style / max directness, load references/dhh-style.md34 and apply its 6 moves on top of the rewrite.35```3637### Diagnostic rubric3839- **Ethos/Logos/Pathos** — is credibility established? is the logic clear and low-load? is there an40 emotional anchor (story, image, stakes)? Default delivery order: ethos → logos → pathos.41- **Structure** — for senior/structured audiences, is the conclusion **first** (Pyramid)? or buried?42- **Focus** — does it talk about _them and their problem_, or about the speaker/the idea/the solution?43- **Safety** — does adopting the idea feel risky/irreversible? is the risk normalized and reduced?44- **Attention** — is there a hook, or is it monotone/predictable?4546---4748## The 7+1 Quick Reference4950| Technique | Use it when | One-line move |51| -------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |52| **Ethos / Logos / Pathos** | Any persuasion; the base layer | Earn the right to be heard, prove it's true, make it felt. |53| **Reframing** | Hit with a trap / destabilizing question | Receive → bridge → pose a better frame. Or answer with a question. |54| **Focus on the other** | You catch yourself talking about you/your solution | Verbalize _their_ problem first — sometimes better than they can. |55| **Pyramid Principle** | Talking to execs / structured, time-poor people | Conclusion first, then 3 proofs, detail only if asked. |56| **Pattern interrupt** | Attention is gone (long meeting, video call) | Break the pattern: unexpected line, silence, blunt question, image. |57| **Make it safe** | A correct idea is being resisted | Normalize hesitation → reversible pilot → protect the person. |58| **Cognitive load** | Always | Short sentences, known concepts, clear transitions. |59| _(Conclusion)_ | Closing the coaching | Pick **one** technique and apply it to the next real exchange. |6061Full treatment with worked examples: [references/frameworks.md](references/frameworks.md).6263---6465## Always-On Guardrails6667- **Never fabricate ethos.** Credibility claims must be true — don't invent credentials, numbers, or68 experience to make an argument land. That's a lie, not a technique.69- **Center the other person.** The most common fix is moving the spotlight off the speaker.70- **Lead with the conclusion for senior audiences.** Buried recommendations get cut off with "where71 is this going?".72- **Stories over bare numbers.** A figure embedded in a story/comparison is remembered far better than73 the figure alone.74- **Don't trust the 7-38-55 rule.** It describes a narrow lab case, not normal speech (see references).75- **Blunt ≠ personal (DHH mode).** Directness targets the idea, never the person. And never soften76 a requested DHH rewrite back into consensus-speak (see references/dhh-style.md).7778---7980## Anti-patterns8182| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Fix |83| ------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |84| Logic-only "expert discourse" | True and deep, but neither agreeable nor memorable | Add ethos up front + a pathos anchor. |85| Talking about yourself / your idea | Listener silently waits their turn, asks "why me?" | Open on their problem. |86| Conclusion buried at the end | Decision-makers disengage before you arrive | Pyramid: conclusion first. |87| Monotone, predictable delivery | Attention drifts to multitasking | One pattern interrupt, then resume substance. |88| Pushing an idea that feels risky | Resistance is perceived political/personal risk | De-risk: pilot, reversible, person protected. |89| Leaning on 7-38-55 ("words barely matter") | Misapplied lab result; in most cases words are essential | Treat verbal/paraverbal/nonverbal as all mattering. |9091---9293## Integrated Example9495**Before** (Slack to leadership): _"Hi — so I've been thinking a lot and I really feel like I personally96need more budget. I've done a ton of work this quarter and I'd love to be able to do more, there are97loads of things I want to try and I think it could be good. Can we talk?"_9899**Diagnosis:** conclusion buried (no ask), self-focused ("I/me" throughout), zero ethos, zero logos100(no reason), no pathos/stakes, feels open-ended and risky.101102**After:** _"We should double the team's budget this quarter. (1) We're behind on the roadmap and need103to catch up; (2) we're resource-constrained on the highest-impact work; (3) the upside is real. To104de-risk: start with a one-month pilot — fully reversible if the numbers don't move. That's how we get105on the podium by quarter-end and actually celebrate hitting the targets together. Details on each point106whenever useful."_107108Conclusion first (Pyramid) → 3 proofs (logos) → reversible pilot (safety) → shared win (pathos).109110---111112## External References113114- **Aristotle**, _Rhetoric_ — ethos, logos, pathos.115- **Barbara Minto**, _The Pyramid Principle_ (McKinsey) — conclusion-first communication.116- **Mehrabian 7-38-55** — widely misquoted; valid only for single-word emotional/contradiction cues.117- **Stanford** — narratives are recalled markedly better than isolated figures.118- **Source video:** Quentin Despas / Katana, _"Comment réfléchir vite et parler intelligemment"_.119120---121122## Benchmark123124Scenario: `.benchmarks/scenarios/communication-001-message-coaching.md`125126| Model | Without | With | Delta |127| ----------------- | ------- | ---- | ----- |128| claude-opus-4-8 | 86% | 100% | +14% |129| claude-sonnet-4-6 | 71% | 100% | +29% |130| claude-haiku-4-5 | 71% | 86% | +15% |131132> **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`.133134Scenario: `.benchmarks/scenarios/communication-002-reframe-tough-question.md` · Run: 2026-08-31 · Log: `.benchmarks/runs/2026-08-31/communication-002-reframe-tough-question.json`135136| Model | Without | With | Delta |137| ----------------- | ------- | ---- | ----- |138| claude-opus-4-8 | 100% | 100% | +0% |139| claude-sonnet-4-6 | 100% | 100% | +0% |140| claude-haiku-4-5 | 100% | 100% | +0% |141142> **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`.
bsene