メニュー
Use when someone needs to negotiate, persuade, or navigate a hard conversation. Triggers on: "연봉 협상", "salary negotiation", "계약 협상", "거절당했어", "설득해야 해", 협상 준비", "ask for a raise", "contract terms", "클라이언트 설득", "상사한테 어떻게 말해".
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/newkayak12/claude-skills --skill negotiationコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
SKILL.md を表示中
Use when a substantial request needs verified, non-repetitive output. Triggers on: "이거 제대로 해줘", "검증까지 해서", "하네스 돌려줘", "run the harness", "do this properly with verification", "6단계로 처리해줘", "메타스크립트로". Not for trivial edits or Q&A.
Use when turning code, docs, notes, or mixed sources into a small-to-moderate, query-efficient Markdown knowledge base with predictable folders, an AI lookup catalog, source-grounded summaries, and RAG-ready metadata.
Use when building knowledge graphs by extracting source-grounded entities, relationships, properties, evidence, schema, and graph-ready data from code, documents, notes, tickets, or mixed corpora.
| name | negotiation |
| effort | max |
| description | Use when someone needs to negotiate, persuade, or navigate a hard conversation. Triggers on: "연봉 협상", "salary negotiation", "계약 협상", "거절당했어", "설득해야 해", 협상 준비", "ask for a raise", "contract terms", "클라이언트 설득", "상사한테 어떻게 말해". |
| scenarios | ["연봉 협상을 해야 하는데 어떻게 접근해야 해?","클라이언트가 가격을 너무 낮게 제시했어, 어떻게 대응하지?","I need to convince my manager to approve this project","계약 조건이 마음에 안 드는데 어떻게 협상해?","The other side keeps saying no — what do I do?","입찰에서 자꾸 떨어지는데 뭔가 전략이 필요해"] |
| compatibility | {"recommended":["think-tool"],"optional":["sequential-thinking"],"remote_mcp_note":"think-tool이 있으면 협상 전 상대방 입장 분석과 Black Swan 탐색을 체계적으로 수행할 수 있습니다. Claude 설정 → MCP Servers에서 remote SSE 엔드포인트를 추가하세요."} |
| related | ["devils-advocate","first-principles"] |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"author":"wondelai","version":"1.1.1"} |
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
Ethical boundary: Hunt for Black Swans to create better outcomes for both sides, not to exploit private or sensitive information.
They say "That's not fair":
They anchor with an extreme number:
They stop responding:
They seem irrational: