| name | communication |
| description | 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", "why did this message land badly", prep for a meeting/pitch/presentation/talk, "how do I say this", be more convincing / persuasive / assertive, handle a tough or trap question, talk to executives / C-level / leadership, structure my idea, get taken seriously, "is this too long-winded".
DO NOT USE when: the user wants raw text generated with no analysis or coaching intent (just write it); pure marketing/copywriting asset production; translation; or writing code/docs/specs. For deciding whether a feature is worth building use `kano`; for editing code prose use the relevant language skill.
|
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
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.
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.
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).
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 skill-optimizer/release-gates.md.
