Prepare and execute negotiations using tactical empathy, calibrated questions, and the Ackerman method. Use when the user mentions "salary negotiation", "contract terms", "handling objections", "mirroring and labeling", or "difficult conversation". Covers accusation audits, Black Swan discovery, and the "That''s Right" technique. For persuasion in product/marketing, see influence-psychology. Trigger with 'negotiation'.
Instrucciones de origen · Vista previa de solo lectura
name
negotiation
description
Prepare and execute negotiations using tactical empathy, calibrated questions, and the Ackerman method. Use when the user mentions "salary negotiation", "contract terms", "handling objections", "mirroring and labeling", or "difficult conversation". Covers accusation audits, Black Swan discovery, and the "That''s Right" technique. For persuasion in product/marketing, see influence-psychology. Trigger with 'negotiation'.
allowed-tools
Read, Glob, Grep
license
MIT
author
Wondelai <hello@wondelai.com>
version
1.0.1
compatible-with
claude-code, codex, openclaw
tags
["business","audit","negotiation"]
Negotiation
Tactical empathy-based negotiation framework from FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss. Transform any negotiation by understanding the emotional drivers behind decisions and using proven techniques to build rapport, uncover hidden information, and reach better outcomes.
Core Principle
People want to be understood and feel safe. Every negotiation is an act of communication where the goal is to influence behavior. The most effective path to "yes" runs through empathy, active listening, and emotional intelligence -- not logic, arguments, or compromise.
The foundation: Treat every negotiation as a discovery process. Your assumptions are hypotheses to be tested, not truths to be defended. Focus on the other side's needs (respect, security, autonomy) rather than their stated positions. Never split the difference -- no deal is better than a bad deal.
Scoring
Goal: 10/10. When reviewing or preparing negotiations, rate them 0-10 based on adherence to the principles below. A 10/10 means full tactical empathy engagement, calibrated questions prepared, accusation audit delivered, emotions labeled, "That's right" achieved, and Black Swans actively hunted; lower scores indicate missed opportunities for rapport, information gathering, or deal improvement. Always provide the current score and specific improvements needed to reach 10/10.
Framework
1. Tactical Empathy
Core concept: Consciously imagine yourself in the counterpart's situation, then vocalize their perspective to create trust and openness.
Why it works: When people feel understood, brain chemistry shifts toward trust and cooperation. Empathy short-circuits defensive reactions and opens the door to genuine dialogue. It is not agreement -- you can understand their position while advocating for your own.
Key insights:
Before responding, ask: "What is their world like right now?"
Articulate their situation, pressures, and fears before stating your position
Empathy must be genuine, not performed -- people detect fakeness instantly
Combine with mirroring and labeling for maximum effect
Unconditional positive regard: respect them as a person regardless of disagreement
Stay calm and positive -- emotions are contagious; slow pace enables clear thinking
Product applications:
Context
Application
Example
Customer support
Acknowledge frustration before offering solutions
"I understand this outage is affecting your team's ability to deliver on deadline"
Sales calls
Demonstrate understanding of prospect's challenges
"It sounds like you're under pressure to show results this quarter"
Pricing conversations
Acknowledge budget constraints upfront
"I know that adding another tool to the stack feels risky right now"
Partnership negotiations
Show understanding of partner's internal pressures
"Your team probably needs to justify this to leadership"
Contract renewals
Recognize changing needs
"It seems like your priorities have shifted since we last spoke"
Copy patterns:
"I understand you're dealing with..."
"It seems like this is creating pressure for your team..."
"I can see why this feels risky..."
"Before we talk about next steps, I want to make sure I understand where you're coming from..."
Ethical boundary: Use empathy to genuinely understand, not to manipulate emotions. Tactical empathy builds real relationships, not exploitative ones.
Core concept: Repeat the last 1-3 critical words your counterpart said, using a curious, upward-inflecting tone, then go silent.
Why it works: Mirroring creates familiarity and rapport by signaling deep listening. It prompts elaboration without direct questions, making people feel heard while revealing more information than they intended to share.
Key insights:
Listen for the key phrase or emotion-laden words
Repeat them back as a gentle question with upward inflection
Wait silently (4+ seconds) for them to expand
Works in person, on phone, and in written communication
Combines powerfully with labeling and tactical silence
The simplest technique but often the most effective for information gathering
Product applications:
Context
Application
Example
Discovery calls
Mirror key concerns to get elaboration
Client: "The timeline is tight." You: "The timeline is tight?"
User interviews
Encourage deeper explanation of pain points
User: "It's just frustrating." You: "Frustrating?"
Objection handling
Reflect objection to understand root cause
"Doesn't fit your budget?"
Negotiation emails
Mirror key phrases in written responses
"You mentioned the partnership 'doesn't make sense'..."
Feedback sessions
Encourage elaboration on vague feedback
"Not quite what you expected?"
Copy patterns:
"[Key phrase they used]?" (with question mark)
"You mentioned [their exact words]..."
"When you say [mirror], what does that look like?"
"Not quite right?" (after they hesitate)
Ethical boundary: Mirror to understand, not to manipulate people into revealing information they want to keep private.
Core concept: Identify and verbalize the counterpart's emotions or perspective using neutral phrases: "It seems like...", "It sounds like...", "It looks like..."
Why it works: Naming emotions validates them and diffuses their power. Labeling negative emotions reduces their intensity; labeling positive emotions reinforces them. The tentative phrasing ("It seems like...") gives them room to correct you, which deepens the conversation either way.
Key insights:
Always use third-person phrasing ("It seems like..."), never "I think you..."
After labeling, be silent -- let them respond
Labeling negative emotions diffuses them; labeling positive emotions amplifies them
If your label is wrong, they'll correct you -- which is still valuable information
Combine labels with tactical silence for maximum effect
Watch for emotional shifts that signal you've hit the mark
Product applications:
Context
Application
Example
Customer complaints
Name the frustration before solving
"It sounds like you feel let down by our response time"
Sales objections
Label the underlying concern
"It seems like there's a concern about implementation risk"
Team conflicts
Surface unspoken tensions
"It looks like there's frustration about how decisions are being made"
Pricing pushback
Acknowledge the emotional reaction
"It seems like the price feels disconnected from the value you've seen so far"
Churn prevention
Identify the real reason for leaving
"It sounds like something changed since you first signed up"
Copy patterns:
"It seems like..."
"It sounds like you're feeling..."
"It looks like this is creating..."
"If I'm reading this right, it feels like..."
Ethical boundary: Label emotions to show understanding, not to weaponize someone's feelings against them.
Core concept: Open-ended "How...?" and "What...?" questions that shape the conversation while giving the counterpart the illusion of control.
Why it works: Calibrated questions engage the counterpart's problem-solving mind, making them feel in charge while you steer the dialogue. They avoid defensiveness that "Why?" creates (which sounds accusatory) and force the other side to consider your position without you stating it directly.
Key insights:
Start with "How" or "What" -- avoid "Why" (sounds accusatory)
"How am I supposed to do that?" is the most powerful pushback without saying no
Questions should be genuinely collaborative, not sarcastic
Use to uncover hidden constraints, needs, and decision-making processes
Exception for "Why": use only when you want them to defend something favorable to you ("Why would you ever choose our company?")
Follow every "yes" with "How...?" to ensure implementation commitment
Product applications:
Context
Application
Example
Price negotiation
Push back without refusing
"How am I supposed to do that at that price point?"
Scope creep
Make them own the constraint
"What happens to the timeline if we add this?"
Stakeholder alignment
Uncover hidden decision-makers
"How does your team typically make decisions like this?"
Contract terms
Surface implementation concerns
"What does the approval process look like on your end?"
Feature requests
Redirect to real needs
"What's the biggest challenge you're trying to solve?"
Copy patterns:
"How am I supposed to do that?"
"What's the biggest challenge you're facing?"
"How can we make this work for both of us?"
"What would it take to make this happen?"
"How does this affect your team?"
Ethical boundary: Use calibrated questions to create genuine collaboration, not to trap people into commitments they don't want to make.
Core concept: Before negotiating, list and preemptively verbalize every negative thing the counterpart might think or say about you.
Why it works: Naming fears and criticisms before the other side does removes their power. It often triggers reassurance ("Oh, I don't think that...") or at minimum neutralizes objections. By addressing elephants in the room first, you demonstrate self-awareness and build trust.
Key insights:
Brainstorm every negative they might think about you or your position before the meeting
Deliver the audit early in the conversation, not after they've raised objections
The list should feel slightly worse than what they actually think -- it overshoots on purpose
Watch them relax as you address concerns they hadn't even voiced
Particularly powerful when you're the party with less leverage
Combine with tactical empathy for maximum disarming effect
Product applications:
Context
Application
Example
Price increase announcement
Preempt anger before explaining
"You're probably thinking we don't value your loyalty..."
Sales cold outreach
Acknowledge the intrusion
"I know you're busy and the last thing you want is another sales pitch..."
Difficult product feedback
Disarm defensiveness
"You might think we haven't been listening to your feedback..."
Contract renegotiation
Address power imbalance
"You probably feel like we're trying to squeeze more out of this..."
Service failure recovery
Own the failure fully
"You're probably furious, and you have every right to be..."
Copy patterns:
"You probably think..."
"You may feel like..."
"I know this might seem like..."
"You might be wondering why you should even listen to..."
Ethical boundary: Use accusation audits to build trust through transparency, not to preemptively shut down legitimate concerns.
Core concept: Summarize the counterpart's position -- facts, emotions, and concerns -- so accurately that they respond with "That's right." This is the breakthrough moment in any negotiation.
Why it works: "That's right" signals that the person feels completely understood. It creates genuine rapport and shifts their mindset from adversarial to collaborative. It is fundamentally different from "You're right" (which often means they're dismissing you).
Key insights:
"That's right" is the two most powerful words in negotiation
"You're right" is dangerous -- it usually means "go away, I don't want to talk anymore"
Listen deeply throughout the conversation before attempting a summary
Include emotional subtext in your summary, not just facts
If you get "You're right" instead, keep working -- you haven't truly connected yet
Use the Rule of Three: confirm agreement 3 times in 3 different ways to ensure commitment
Apply the "No" technique first -- let them say "No" to feel safe, then work toward "That's right"
Product applications:
Context
Application
Example
Sales closing
Summarize their needs before proposing
"So your team needs X, you're worried about Y, and Z is the deal-breaker..."
Customer retention
Show you understand why they're leaving
"Let me make sure I have this: the product isn't delivering on the promise we made..."
Stakeholder buy-in
Summarize concerns before pitching
"What I'm hearing is that the risk feels too high given the current roadmap..."
Team alignment
Validate before redirecting
"So the concern is that this initiative will stretch the team too thin..."
Negotiation closure
Confirm understanding before terms
"Let me make sure I understand: you need [X], by [date], and [constraint]..."
Copy patterns:
"Let me make sure I understand..."
"So what you're saying is..."
"If I'm hearing you correctly..."
"It sounds like [complete summary of their position including emotions]..."
Ethical boundary: Seek "That's right" through genuine understanding, not through manipulative reframing of their position.
Core concept: A systematic monetary negotiation method using calculated offers in decreasing increments (65% -> 85% -> 95% -> 100%) with precise non-round numbers and a non-monetary bonus at the end.
Why it works: Decreasing increments signal that you're approaching your limit. Precise, non-round numbers ($47,235 vs $47,000) feel calculated and final -- as if you've truly pushed to your absolute maximum. The final non-monetary gift signals generosity at the limit, making it psychologically harder for them to ask for more.
Key insights:
Set your target price first (what you actually want to pay/receive)
Open at 65% of target to create room for concessions
Raise in decreasing increments: 85% -> 95% -> 100%
Use precise, non-round numbers on final offer ($10,230 not $10,000)
Include a non-monetary bonus with final offer ("...and I'll include X")
Never make concessions without getting something in return
If they anchor with an extreme number, don't counter -- use calibrated questions: "How did you arrive at that figure?"
Product applications:
Context
Application
Example
Salary negotiation
Structure counter-offers systematically
Target $120K: open discussion at $78K, move to $102K, $114K, final $120,350 + extra PTO
Vendor pricing
Methodical price reduction
Target $50K: start at $32.5K, move to $42.5K, $47.5K, final $49,850 + extended payment terms
Contract value
Anchor and increment strategically
Set target, open low, concede in shrinking amounts with precise figures
SaaS enterprise deals
Multi-year pricing negotiations
Use decreasing discount increments across contract years
Freelance rates
Project-based negotiation
Anchor with lower scope, expand incrementally with precise totals
Copy patterns:
"Based on our analysis, we can offer $[precise number]..."
"We've stretched as far as we can -- $[precise number], and we'll include [non-monetary bonus]"
"I've gone back to my team and the absolute best we can do is $[precise number]"
"To make this work, how about $[precise number] with [non-monetary addition]?"
Ethical boundary: Use the Ackerman method for fair negotiations, not to lowball or exploit people who lack negotiation skills.
Core concept: Hidden, game-changing pieces of information that can transform a negotiation once discovered. Every negotiation has approximately three Black Swans lurking.
Why it works: Negotiations stall or fail when critical information remains hidden. Black Swans are the unknown unknowns -- secret constraints, hidden motivations, or unknown context -- that explain seemingly irrational behavior. Discovering even one can turn a stalemate into a breakthrough.
Key insights:
Every negotiation has approximately 3 Black Swans lurking
Types: secret constraints (boss said no more than X), hidden motivations (need this deal to save their job), unknown context (competitor just made a move)
Stay curious; ask calibrated questions to surface them
Watch for anomalies -- odd reactions, hesitations, or inconsistencies signal hidden factors
Listen in unguarded moments (before/after meetings, casual conversation)
If they seem irrational, diagnose: are they (1) ill-informed, (2) constrained, or (3) hiding something?
Use three types of leverage -- positive (what they want), negative (what they fear), and normative (their own stated values) -- to surface hidden information
Product applications:
Context
Application
Example
Enterprise sales
Discover hidden budget or timeline constraints
"What happens internally if this doesn't get resolved by Q3?"
Churn analysis
Uncover the real reason behind cancellation
"It seems like something changed -- what happened?"
Partnership deals
Surface unstated strategic motivations
"How does this fit into your bigger picture for next year?"
Hiring negotiations
Discover candidate's true priorities
"What would make you regret not taking this offer?"
Competitive situations
Reveal information about competing offers
"It sounds like you're weighing other options -- what would help you decide?"
Copy patterns:
"What's the biggest thing I'm missing here?"
"What would change everything about this situation?"
"Help me understand -- what's really driving this?"
"If there's something I should know that would make this work better for both of us..."
Ethical boundary: Hunt for Black Swans to create better outcomes for both sides, not to exploit private or sensitive information.
Stop immediately: "I want to be fair. Have I done something unfair? Let's discuss it."
They anchor with an extreme number:
Don't counter immediately; use calibrated questions: "How did you arrive at that figure?"
They stop responding:
Send: "Have you given up on [the project]?" -- triggers "No" response
They seem irrational:
Diagnose: Are they (1) ill-informed, (2) constrained, or (3) hiding something?
Use calibrated questions to uncover which
Counterpart Styles
Adapt your approach based on their negotiation style:
Style
Signs
Adapt by...
Analyst
Methodical, data-driven, hates surprises
Use facts, be patient, don't rush
Accommodator
Friendly, relationship-focused, avoids conflict
Build rapport, but pin down specifics
Assertive
Direct, time-conscious, wants to win
Be efficient, stand firm, acknowledge their points
Insight: Great negotiators borrow from all three styles as needed.
Voice and Delivery
Default voice: Positive, warm, light-hearted (with a smile)
Critical moments: Late-Night DJ Voice -- slow, calm, downward inflection
After key statements: Pause 4+ seconds (tactical silence)
Watch their nonverbals: 7% words, 38% tone, 55% body language
Common Mistakes
Mistake
Why It Fails
Fix
Splitting the difference
Creates lukewarm outcomes nobody is happy with
Hold firm; no deal is better than a bad deal
Pushing for "yes"
Makes people defensive and produces counterfeit agreement
Pursue "That's right" instead; let them say "No" first
Arguing your position
Triggers resistance and shuts down listening
Use calibrated questions and labels to let them talk
Skipping the accusation audit
Unaddressed objections fester and derail later
List every negative they might think; address them early
Countering an extreme anchor immediately
Validates their anchor as the starting point
Mirror, label, ask "How did you arrive at that?"
Using "Why?"
Sounds accusatory and triggers defensiveness
Replace with "What" and "How" questions
Treating "You're right" as success
It means they want you to go away, not that they agree
Keep working toward "That's right"
Quick Diagnostic
Audit any negotiation preparation or live interaction:
Question
If No
Action
Have I prepared an accusation audit?
Objections will blindside you
List every negative they might think; address early
Do I have 3-5 calibrated questions ready?
You'll default to arguing
Draft "How" and "What" questions targeting their needs
Have I identified my BATNA?
You'll accept a bad deal under pressure
Define your walk-away point before negotiating
Am I aiming for "That's right"?
You'll chase counterfeit "yes"
Summarize their position until they affirm genuinely
Have I considered their negotiation style?
One-size-fits-all approach will misfire
Assess if they're Analyst, Accommodator, or Assertive
Am I hunting for Black Swans?
You'll miss game-changing information
Stay curious; watch for anomalies; ask about the unexpected
Reference Files
techniques.md: Complete technique breakdowns including mirroring, labeling, tactical empathy, voice control, accusation audit, calibrated questions, no-oriented questions, "That's right", Ackerman method, Black Swans, counterpart styles, body language, and pronoun analysis with examples and psychological triggers
Further Reading
This skill is based on Chris Voss's research and experience as an FBI hostage negotiator. For the complete methodology, case studies, and advanced techniques:
Chris Voss is a former FBI lead international kidnapping negotiator and the founder of the Black Swan Group, a consulting firm that trains businesses in tactical negotiation. During his 24-year career at the FBI, Voss was the Bureau's lead negotiator for international kidnapping cases and worked more than 150 hostage situations worldwide. He has taught negotiation at Harvard Law School, Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business, and MIT's Sloan School of Management. Never Split the Difference has become one of the most widely recommended business books in the world and has been translated into dozens of languages. Voss's methods are now used by Fortune 500 companies, law enforcement agencies, and professionals across every industry.
Overview
Prepare and execute negotiations using tactical empathy, calibrated questions, and the Ackerman method.
Prerequisites
Access to the logging environment or API
Required CLI tools installed and authenticated
Familiarity with logging concepts and terminology
Instructions
Assess the current state of the logging configuration
Identify the specific requirements and constraints
Apply the recommended patterns from this skill
Validate the changes against expected behavior
Document the configuration for team reference
Output
Configuration files or code changes applied to the project
