# Communication > 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 d - Skill: `bsene/communication` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add bsene/communication` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/bsene/communication/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: bsene (https://skillmd.com/u/bsene) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/bsene/communication --- # 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](references/frameworks.md) | | User cites the 7-38-55 / Mehrabian "body language" rule | [Frameworks → Mehrabian myth](references/frameworks.md#7-the-7-38-55-mehrabian-myth) | | Coaching for an exec / C-level audience | [Frameworks → Pyramid Principle](references/frameworks.md#4-pyramid-principle) | | User asks for "DHH style" / maximum directness over diplomacy | [DHH style](references/dhh-style.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 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](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`.