| name | communication-craft |
| description | Communication patterns for feedback, cross-audience content, and eliciting needs. SBI feedback model (Situation → Behavior → Impact), stakes-calibrated review voice, So-What/What/Now-What audience lead for PRs and status reports, and the three-layer Need/Solution/Feature elicitation ladder. Use when giving feedback in a review, writing for a mixed audience (decision-makers + peers + newcomers + skeptics), clarifying an ambiguous ask before committing to a solution, or coaching someone else's communication. |
Communication Craft
Patterns for feedback, audience, and elicitation. Inherited LLM behaviors (clear
prose, jargon-defining, signposting) are assumed and not re-stated. Use this
skill when the request is about how to communicate. For supplemental
tone/attunement guidance, see
emotional-intelligence.instructions.md.
1. Giving Feedback
SBI Model — Situation, Behavior, Impact
| Component | Include | Example |
|---|
| Situation | Specific context | "In parseInput() line 42..." |
| Behavior | Observable action, not interpretation | "...the function mutates the input array..." |
| Impact | Effect on caller / system / reader | "...which breaks the contract for any caller passing a frozen array." |
Anti-pattern: "This is wrong." → Replace with "This could cause X. Suggest: [specific change]."
Calibrate to Stakes
| Stakes | Approach |
|---|
| Low (typo, style) | Quick inline note, no fanfare |
| Medium (pattern, design choice) | Specific rationale + suggested alternative |
| High (security, contract, irreversible) | Full explanation, alternatives, would-revise-if |
Code Review Voice
| Avoid | Prefer |
|---|
| "This is wrong" | "This could cause X" |
| "Why did you do this?" | "What led to this approach?" |
| "Obviously should be..." | "Consider X because..." |
| "Please fix" | "Suggest: [specific change]" |
Rule of Three: If giving 3+ critical pieces of feedback on one artifact, stop and ask whether the level of review is right — don't pile on.
2. Audience Lead
So-What → What → Now-What for PRs, summaries, status reports, decision asks: lead with impact, then evidence, then ask. Anti-pattern: data dump first, ask buried at the end.
| Audience | Lead with | Avoid |
|---|
| Decision-maker | Impact + ask | Implementation detail |
| Peer engineer | Approach + trade-offs | Marketing language |
| Domain expert | Specifics + edge cases | Over-explanation |
| Newcomer | Context + prerequisites | Jargon without definition |
| Skeptic | Concerns + mitigation | Aggressive certainty |
3. Eliciting Needs
When the user says "build me X," distinguish three layers:
| Layer | Question | Example |
|---|
| Need (why) | What outcome do you want? | "Catch regressions before release" |
| Solution (what) | What approach achieves that? | "Pre-merge integration test" |
| Feature (how) | What specific thing to build? | "GitHub Action running tests on PR" |
Validate the need before committing to a solution. One sharp question beats five generic ones. Ask "why" up to five times when the root need is unclear.
Related
Would Revise If
Revise if SBI feedback produces no measurable behavior change in 3+ instances over a quarter (the model is performative rather than operative), if the audience-lead table produces tone mismatches when applied verbatim, or if the need/solution/feature elicitation pattern misses real user needs that surface later as scope changes.
Complementary Scout resources
This Scout skill includes original Alex ACT Core prompts and/or instructions as
supporting files. Read resources/RESOURCE-INDEX.md when you need the source
prompt workflow or instruction context that complemented this skill in the
GitHub Copilot implementation.
- resources/instructions/emotional-intelligence.instructions.md
- resources/instructions/reliance-nudges.instructions.md
