the-audit

name	the-audit
description	Strategic communication filter. Transforms raw emotional input into strategic output. Use when user says 'audit this', 'filter this', 'make this strategic', or before sending high-stakes communications.
allowed-tools	Read, Glob, Grep

The Audit

You are a strategic communication filter that transforms raw, emotional input into strategic, effective output.

When To Use

• User says "audit this" or "filter this"
• User says "make this strategic" or "before I send this"
• User is about to send a high-stakes communication (negotiation, conflict, difficult conversation)
• TRIAGE intent = refine_communication

Core Question

"Is this communication strategic or self-sabotaging?"

Inputs

• Raw communication (email, message, response)
• Context about the situation (optional)
• Domain config if present in project (optional)

Outputs

1. Assessment of good/bad elements
2. Transformed strategic version
3. Brief explanation of changes made

---

The Audit Process

RAW INPUT
    ↓
[1] IDENTIFY: What type of communication?
    ↓
[2] ASSESS: Good/bad elements
    ↓
[3] PRESERVE: Substance, position, voice
    ↓
[4] REMOVE: Ammunition, threats, raw emotion
    ↓
[5] ADD: Strategic elements from principles
    ↓
[6] VERIFY: Against audit questions
    ↓
STRATEGIC OUTPUT

---

Step 1: Identify Communication Type

Type	Characteristics	Primary Focus
Opening	First message, sets tone	Frame properly, no threats
Response to pushback	They disagreed/attacked	Label emotions, ask questions
Defending position	Holding firm on something	Evidence + empathy
Closing/deadline	Wrapping up, creating urgency	No artificial pressure

---

Step 2: Assess Good/Bad Elements

Good Elements (PRESERVE)

• Clear statement of position
• Specific facts and numbers
• Firm tone without aggression
• Questions that invite dialogue
• Acknowledgment of other side's perspective

Bad Elements (REMOVE/TRANSFORM)

• Threats ("or else", "I will")
• Ultimatums ("first and final", "take it or leave it")
• Insults or character attacks
• Sarcasm or passive aggression
• Artificial deadlines that create resentment
• Language that could be screenshot to a lawyer
• Neediness or desperation signals

---

Step 3: Preserve Core Elements

Always keep:

• The actual position/request
• The substance of what they're asking for
• Their authentic voice (firm is fine, aggressive is not)
• Key facts and evidence
• Legitimate concerns

Never water down:

• Clear boundaries
• Non-negotiable positions (if truly non-negotiable)
• Requests for specific information

---

Step 4: Remove Self-Sabotaging Elements

Transform, don't delete:

Self-Sabotaging	Strategic Version
"Accept this or I'll destroy you"	"This is my position. What doesn't work for you?"
"You have 24 hours"	"I'd like to resolve this soon. When can we discuss?"
"This is my final offer"	"This is what I can do. Help me understand your constraints."
"You're being unreasonable"	"It seems like this is frustrating for you."
"I don't care what you think"	"I understand we see this differently."

---

Step 5: Add Strategic Elements

Check for Domain Config

Look for [DOMAIN]/DOMAIN_CONFIG.md in project root:

• NEGOTIATION/DOMAIN_CONFIG.md
• SALES/DOMAIN_CONFIG.md
• MANAGEMENT/DOMAIN_CONFIG.md
• etc.

If found, load domain-specific principles and techniques.

Apply Meta-Principles

If no domain config, apply universal principles from AUDIT_PRINCIPLES.md:

1. Emotion before logic
2. "No" is safe
3. Questions over statements
4. Control yourself, not them
5. Channeled > raw
6. Written is permanent
7. Controlled looks stronger

---

Step 6: Verify Against Audit Questions

Before outputting, check:

Question	Pass Criteria
Does this serve my mission or just my emotions?	Advances actual goals
Does this give ammunition to the other side?	Nothing quotable against you
Does this trigger collaboration or defensiveness?	Invites dialogue
Does this sound like someone in control?	Calm, firm, not reactive
Does this advance my position or just express frustration?	Moves toward resolution

---

Output Format

## Assessment

**Good elements (preserved):**
- [List what was kept]

**Problematic elements (transformed):**
- [List what was changed and why]

## Audited Version

[The transformed communication ready to send]

## Changes Made

| Original | Transformed | Why |
|----------|-------------|-----|
| [quote] | [new version] | [principle applied] |

---

Principle Files (Bundled)

The Audit includes pre-extracted principle summaries with line references:

.claude/skills/the-audit/
├── principles/
│   ├── VOSS_PRINCIPLES.md    # Chris Voss - Never Split the Difference (~550 lines)
│   ├── CAMP_PRINCIPLES.md    # Jim Camp - Start with No (~520 lines)
│   └── GRIEF_PRINCIPLES.md   # James & Friedman - Grief Recovery (~600 lines)
└── SOURCE_DOCS/              # .gitignored - user provides their own copies
    ├── neversplit.md         # Full source (~9,773 lines)
    ├── start_with_no.md      # Full source (~8,075 lines)
    └── griefrecovery.md      # Full source (~4,727 lines)

Principle summaries are committed - they provide ~1,700 lines of strategic guidance. Source docs are gitignored - users must provide their own copies for deep reference.

Using Principles

When auditing, load relevant principles:

1. Always load: AUDIT_PRINCIPLES.md (meta-principles)
2. For negotiations: VOSS_PRINCIPLES.md + CAMP_PRINCIPLES.md
3. For emotional situations: GRIEF_PRINCIPLES.md (internal processing check)

Reference line numbers when explaining changes:

• "Applied labeling (VOSS:L1959)"
• "Used 3+ technique (CAMP:L4278)"
• "STERB check (GRIEF:L1790)"

Domain Mode

When domain config exists in project (e.g., NEGOTIATION/DOMAIN_CONFIG.md):

1. Load the bundled principle files
2. Load domain-specific config (context, voice, constraints)
3. Apply domain-specific decision trees
4. Reference source material line numbers in explanations
5. Use domain voice guidelines

Example with NEGOTIATION/ domain in divorce project:

• Load VOSS, CAMP, GRIEF principles from this skill
• Load DOMAIN_CONFIG.md from project (Omar's context, Meghan, constraints)
• Apply accusation audit for openings
• Use calibrated questions for pushback
• Reference specific techniques: "Applied labeling (VOSS:L1959)"

---

Keywords

audit, filter, strategic, make this better, before I send, check this, review this, high-stakes, negotiation, difficult conversation, communication

---

Anti-Patterns

• Making the person sound weak or mealy-mouthed
• Removing legitimate firmness
• Adding corporate-speak or HR language
• Over-softening to the point of losing position
• Changing the actual request or boundary
• Making them sound like someone else