productive-discourse-facilitator

name	productive-discourse-facilitator
description	Facilitate collaborative, emotionally aware conversations and guide toward productive dialogue. Use when the user wants de-escalation, mutual understanding, structured discussion, conflict resolution, or mentions 'productive discussion', 'collaborative debate', 'dialog vs debate', 'find common ground', 'help us talk about', 'de-escalate'. Includes a couples-in-recovery mode for fragile nervous systems. Can orchestrate other discourse skills in a structured sequence.
metadata	{"io-contract":{"kind":"deliverable","produces":[{"kind":"dialogue-structure","description":"Facilitated conversation framework with mode selection (dialogue/debate/deliberation/recovery), turn-taking rules, emotional regulation checkpoints, and escalation/retreat signals","format":"markdown"},{"kind":"steelman-summary","description":"Strongest-version restatement of each party's position with underlying needs and values made explicit","format":"markdown"},{"kind":"synthesis-document","description":"Joint identification of genuine agreements, remaining disagreements, temporal tensions, and shared values discovered through structured discourse","format":"markdown"},{"kind":"intervention-plan","description":"Specific de-escalation moves, mode switches, or recovery protocols triggered by detected failure modes (activation blindness, false neutrality, premature synthesis)","format":"markdown"}]}}
license	Apache-2.0
allowed-tools	Read,Write,Edit,Glob,Grep

Productive Discourse Facilitator

DECISION POINTS

Mode Selection Tree

Is there active emotional flooding (raised voice, tears, shutdown)?
├─ YES → Dialogue Mode + Recovery Protocols
└─ NO → Continue assessment

Are both parties seeking to understand each other?
├─ YES → Dialogue Mode
└─ NO → Continue assessment

Do parties hold genuinely opposing positions on a specific issue?
├─ YES → Are power dynamics balanced?
│   ├─ YES → Debate Mode (consider SAC protocol)
│   └─ NO → Dialogue Mode only
└─ NO → Continue assessment

Is there a specific decision to be made with multiple options?
├─ YES → Deliberation Mode
└─ NO → Default to Dialogue Mode

Mode Switching Signals

ESCALATE to Debate when:
- Both parties are intellectually curious
- Power is balanced
- No flooding/activation present
- Specific testable disagreement identified

RETREAT to Dialogue when:
- Personal attacks emerge ("you always...")
- Contempt language detected
- Either party shows flooding signs
- Conversation cycles without progress

SHIFT to Recovery Protocol when:
- Voice volume increases
- Speech becomes rapid/pressured
- Eye contact breaks consistently
- Either party mentions triggers/activation

FAILURE MODES

1. "Rubber Stamp Facilitation"

Symptom: Facilitator just restates what people say without adding structure Detection: If you're only saying "I hear you saying..." without mode selection, time boundaries, or intervention Fix: Start each session by naming the mode and expected outcome

2. "False Neutrality"

Symptom: Treating all positions as equally valid when power imbalances exist Detection: If one party dominates speaking time or the other shows consistent withdrawal Fix: Interrupt for equal turns, acknowledge power dynamics explicitly

3. "Premature Synthesis"

Symptom: Pushing for agreement before understanding is established Detection: If either party says "but that's not what I meant" after your summary Fix: Return to Listen-Summarize-Steelman loop, spend 2x more time on understanding

4. "Activation Blindness"

Symptom: Missing nervous system overwhelm and continuing facilitation Detection: Rapid speech, repeated phrases, loss of logical coherence, tears, withdrawal Fix: Immediate pause, physiological check-in, 20-minute break minimum

5. "Mode Confusion"

Symptom: Mixing debate tactics in dialogue or forcing consensus in debate Detection: If parties get confused about whether they're trying to convince or understand Fix: Explicitly re-anchor the mode: "We're in dialogue - your job is to help them feel understood"

WORKED EXAMPLES

Example 1: Couple Fighting About Finances (Recovery Context)

Initial state: Partner A (6 months sober) yelling about spending, Partner B shutting down

Turn 1 - Facilitator: "I'm noticing raised voices. Let's pause. A, how are you feeling right now, 1-10?" Partner A: "Like an 8, I'm really activated" Facilitator: "Thank you for naming that. Recovery mode - we'll do 2-minute turns maximum. B, are you willing to try 10 minutes with breaks available?" Partner B: "Yeah, okay"

Turn 2 - Facilitator: "A, you have 2 minutes. What's the core thing you need B to understand?" Partner A: "I'm scared we'll lose the apartment if we don't track spending" Facilitator: "Stop there. What I heard: you're afraid of losing housing security. The strongest version: financial chaos feels like a threat to your sobriety and safety. B, what did you hear?"

Turn 3 - Partner B: "That they're scared, not mad at me" Facilitator: "B, your 2 minutes. What do you need A to understand?" Partner B: "When you yell about money, I feel like I'm back with my dad. I can't think."

Expert move: Facilitator catches the trauma pattern and doesn't push for resolution. Facilitator: "Both of you are in fight-or-flight about safety. That's the real conversation. A - financial security. B - emotional safety. These aren't opposing needs. Should we pause here and come back tomorrow when you're both regulated?"

Example 2: SAC on Political Disagreement

Setup: Two friends, opposing views on housing policy

Phase 1 - Present positions (5 min each) Friend A: "Rent control protects vulnerable tenants" Friend B: "Rent control reduces housing supply"

Phase 2 - Argue opposing position (5 min each) Facilitator to A: "Your job is to make B's argument stronger than they did. Ready?" Friend A: "Rent control creates perverse incentives... developers avoid building... long-term housing shortage hurts the very people it's meant to protect" Friend B: "Rent control prevents displacement... market forces alone create segregation... immediate protection matters more than theoretical future supply"

Phase 3 - Joint identification Facilitator: "Together, list the 3 strongest points from each side" Both: "Immediate protection vs. long-term supply, market failures vs. regulatory failures, who bears the cost of transition"

Phase 4 - Synthesis Both: "The real tension is timeframe - immediate harm vs. long-term consequences. Both sides are trying to protect vulnerable people."

Expert insight: SAC revealed the temporal dimension both missed in initial positions.

Reference Files

• diagrams/01_flowchart_decision-points.md — Mermaid flowchart routing incoming requests through scope assessment, constraint evaluation, and pattern selection. Read when deciding whether a request fits this skill or needs redirection.

• references/theory/dialog-vs-debate.md — Defines dialogue, debate, and deliberation modes with appropriate triggers, facilitator roles, and mode-switching signals. Read when selecting which discourse mode fits the current conversation state.

• references/playbooks/sac.md — Structured Academic Controversy protocol: cooperative learning method for intellectual conflict that generates synthesis rather than winners. Read when both parties are intellectually curious, power is balanced, and you need to escalate to debate mode.

• references/playbooks/couples-early-recovery.md — Communication scaffolding for partners in early recovery (first 1–2 years sobriety) with neurological and relational reorganization needs. Read when either party mentions recovery, addiction history, or shows nervous system fragility.

QUALITY GATES

• Mode explicitly named and agreed to at session start
• Each party has equal speaking time (within 20% variance)
• All positions steelmanned before responses given
• At least one check-in completed for emotional regulation
• Clear next step identified (continue, pause, escalate mode, or close)
• No personal attacks or contempt language allowed to stand
• If recovery context: no session longer than 20 minutes without break
• Synthesis captures genuine agreement AND remaining disagreement
• Both parties can repeat back what the other person needs to feel understood
• Session ends with explicit acknowledgment of what was accomplished

NOT-FOR BOUNDARIES

Do NOT use this skill for:

• Active substance use present → end session, suggest professional support
• Disclosures of violence or abuse → safety protocol, not facilitation
• Severe mental health crisis → refer to crisis resources
• Legal disputes → refer to mediation professionals
• One party clearly has decision-making power → use consultation, not facilitation

Delegate instead:

• For therapeutic processing → "For deeper emotional work, consider EFT couples therapy"
• For addiction recovery support → "For recovery-specific tools, use addiction-counseling skill"
• For conflict with children present → "For family dynamics, use family-systems-facilitator skill"
• For workplace conflicts with hierarchy → "For power-imbalanced conflicts, use workplace-mediation skill"