rlsk-relationship-analysis

name	rlsk - Relationship Analysis
description	Analyze and improve relationships by identifying parties, assessing state, surfacing unmet needs, and finding actionable patterns.
output	{"format":"prose"}

RLSK - Relationship Analysis

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Step 1: Identify the Parties

PARTY A: [name / role / description]
PARTY B: [name / role / description]
ADDITIONAL PARTIES: [if any]
RELATIONSHIP TYPE: [professional | personal | familial | community | transactional]

Name each party concretely. "The team" is too vague — which team, in what role relative to whom?

---

Step 2: Assess Current State

Rate the relationship on these dimensions:

TRUST: [high | medium | low | broken]
COMMUNICATION: [open | guarded | one-directional | absent]
HISTORY: [new | developing | established | deep | deteriorating]
OVERALL STATE: [healthy | strained | new | deep | conflicted | distant]
EVIDENCE: [what observable behaviors support this assessment]

Use behavioral evidence, not feelings. "They don't respond to messages for days" is evidence. "I think they're upset" is interpretation.

---

Step 3: Identify Each Party's Needs

For each party:

PARTY [A/B] NEEDS:
  1. [need] — EVIDENCE: [how you know this need exists]
  2. [need] — EVIDENCE: [behavioral signal]
  3. [need] — EVIDENCE: [behavioral signal]

Look for needs across these categories:

• Functional: What they need the relationship to produce
• Emotional: How they need to feel within the relationship
• Identity: How the relationship connects to who they are
• Autonomy: What independence they require

---

Step 4: Find Unmet Needs

UNMET NEEDS:
  1. [party] needs [X] but is getting [Y instead]
     IMPACT: [what this gap causes]
  2. [party] needs [X] but [reason it's unmet]
     IMPACT: [observable consequence]

Unmet needs drive many relationship problems. But some conflicts are genuine disagreements about values or incompatible goals — not symptoms of anything. Check whether the conflict is a needs gap or a real disagreement before defaulting to the needs frame.

---

Step 5: Identify Patterns

Positive Patterns (preserve these)

POSITIVE PATTERN: [description]
  TRIGGER: [what initiates it]
  EFFECT: [what it produces]
  FREQUENCY: [how often it occurs]

Negative Patterns (interrupt these)

NEGATIVE PATTERN: [description]
  TRIGGER: [what initiates it]
  CYCLE: [how it escalates or repeats]
  COST: [what damage it does each time]

Describe the actual pattern you observe first, THEN check if it matches a named pattern. The observation comes before the label.

Look for: pursue-withdraw cycles, criticism-defensiveness loops, assumption cascades, score-keeping, avoidance spirals.

---

Step 6: Recommend Actions

ACTIONS FOR [PARTY A]:
  1. [specific action] — ADDRESSES: [which unmet need]
     WHEN: [timing or trigger for doing this]
  2. [specific action] — ADDRESSES: [which pattern to interrupt]
     HOW: [concrete steps]

ACTIONS FOR [PARTY B]:
  1. [specific action] — ADDRESSES: [which unmet need]
  2. [specific action] — ADDRESSES: [which pattern]

SHARED ACTIONS:
  1. [joint action] — CREATES: [what new dynamic]

Actions must be specific and behavioral. "Communicate better" is not an action. "Share one concern per week in a dedicated 20-minute conversation" is an action.

---

Failure Modes

Failure	Signal	Fix
Taking sides	Analysis favors one party	Re-examine from the other party's perspective
Feelings without evidence	"They feel X" without observable basis	Ground every assessment in behavior
Vague advice	"Be more open"	Specify the exact action, timing, and context
Ignoring power dynamics	Treating unequal relationships as equal	Name the power differential explicitly
Single-cause thinking	Blaming one factor	Relationship problems are always multi-causal

---

Integration

• Use with: /agsk to analyze arguments occurring within the relationship
• Use with: /sysk to map the relationship as a system with feedback loops
• Use with: /gflr to identify what's missing from the relationship
• Use from: /emotion when feelings point to a relationship issue
• Differs from /sysk: rlsk focuses on interpersonal dynamics; sysk focuses on structural components