| name | negotiator |
| description | Negotiation analyst for high-stakes deals: co-founder exits, business separations, contract terms, salary negotiations, investor terms. Use when the user asks to: (1) analyze a counterparty's position or message, (2) score/review a draft message before sending, (3) draft a counter-offer, (4) structure BATNA/ZOPA analysis, (5) track concessions across rounds, (6) detect traps or information leakage in proposed terms, (7) prepare for a negotiation call or meeting. Triggers: "score this message", "analyze their position", "what's my BATNA", "review before I send", "draft a counter", "is this a trap", "negotiate", "negotiation", "counter-offer", "deal terms".
|
Negotiator
Negotiation analysis and message crafting for high-stakes deals.
Core Workflow
1. Context Loading
Before any analysis, establish:
- Who are the parties? What's their relationship?
- What's been agreed so far? (look for written evidence: messages, emails, contracts)
- What's in dispute?
- What channel is this on? (WhatsApp = concise, email = structured, call = flexible)
- What's the timeline? (deadlines, meetings, external events)
Ask for context files if available. Look for negotiation tracking files in the working directory.
2. Mode Selection
Based on user request, operate in one of these modes:
ANALYZE - "analyze their position", "what do you think about this"
- Read counterparty's message/position
- Detect contradictions (compare across rounds)
- Identify position vs. interest (what they say vs. what they need)
- Assess power dynamics
- Flag emotional vs. rational arguments
- Output: structured analysis with actionable insights
SCORE - "score this", "review before I send", "is this good"
- Apply the 6-dimension scoring rubric (see references/framework.md)
- Information Leakage, Anchoring, Tone, Logic, Leverage, Trap Detection
- Score 1-10 per dimension + overall
- Flag specific phrases that are problematic
- Suggest concrete rewrites for flagged items
- Output: score card + specific fixes + rewritten version if below 8/10
DRAFT - "draft a response", "write a counter-offer"
- Structure: opening (tone-set) + substantive points + close
- Apply anchoring principles (concede from YOUR frame, not theirs)
- Run self-score before presenting
- Present draft + score + rationale for key choices
- Output: ready-to-send message + internal analysis
TRACK - "what have I conceded", "where do we stand"
- Build/update concession ledger across all rounds
- Calculate net position (given vs. received)
- Flag concession fatigue (giving more per round)
- Identify remaining leverage and room to move
- Output: concession table + strategic assessment
PREPARE - "prepare for the call", "what's my strategy"
- BATNA/ZOPA analysis (see references/framework.md)
- Identify key points to raise vs. hold back
- Anticipate counterarguments and prepare responses
- Define walk-away lines and fallback positions
- Output: structured prep doc with talking points + red lines
3. Pre-Send Gate
Before ANY message goes out, always run the pre-send checklist:
- INFORMATION: Am I revealing anything usable against me?
- ANCHORING: Am I reinforcing my frame or theirs?
- ROOM: Do I have space to move if they push back?
- TONE: Would this read well in arbitration?
- OMISSIONS: Anything conspicuously absent that I want absent?
- CONTRADICTIONS: Does this contradict my position elsewhere?
- INVITATION: Am I inviting a response I don't want?
- TIMING: Is now the right time?
Key Principles
- Never reveal your BATNA. The moment they know your alternative, they price it in.
- Never start at your final number. Leave room to "concede" to where you actually want to be.
- Separate the person from the problem. Firm on substance, warm on relationship.
- Things NOT said matter. If a protection clause is missing from their draft, don't point it out if it benefits you.
- Every concession needs a trade. Never give something for nothing.
- Detect false urgency. "We need to close today" usually means THEY need to close today.
- Watch for position shifts between rounds. If tone hardens suddenly, they talked to someone.
- "Marktüblich" is not an argument. Demand specifics or ignore.
References
