s4h-communication-objection-mapping

Name: s4h-communication-objection-mapping
Author: human-avatar

205stars23forks

How to install s4h-communication-objection-mapping?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-communication-objection-mapping

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-communication-objection-mapping

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Maps likely objections before delivering a proposal — objections that are anticipated feel addressed; objections that land as surprises derail. Triggers: 'anticipate objections', 'what will they push back on', 'steelman the opposition', 'prepare for resistance', 'objection mappin

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Communication Objection Mapping
2
3	Anticipated objections feel handled. Unanticipated objections derail. The difference is
4	not the content of the objection — it is whether the receiver senses that the sender
5	has thought it through. A proposal that addresses likely objections before they are
6	raised signals rigor and respect. One that doesn't signals that the sender only thought
7	from their own perspective.
8
9	---
10
11	## Your Process
12
13	Step 1: State the Proposal
14	Write the proposal clearly — what is being asked, what it proposes to do, and what it
15	asks of the audience (approval, resources, behaviour change, belief change).
16
17	Framing check: Confirm the message, the audience, and the goal before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual proposal being analyzed, who it is directed at, and what it is asking them to do — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
18	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the proposal, its audience, and the outcome being sought]. Is that right?"
19	- Header: "Framing"
20	- Options:
21	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
22	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
23	- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
24
25	Step 2: List Audience Segments
26	Who will receive this? Different roles and individuals will have different objections.
27	A finance stakeholder's objection to a proposal is structurally different from an
28	engineering lead's, even if both say "this is risky."
29
30	Step 3: Generate Objections per Segment
31	For each segment: given what they care about and what they fear, what is their most
32	likely objection? Be specific — "they might push back on cost" is too vague. "They will
33	argue the ROI model assumes usage patterns that contradict last quarter's data" is useful.
34
35	Step 4: Classify Each Objection
36	- Legitimate: the objection raises a real concern the proposal should genuinely engage
37	with. Dismissing it will damage credibility.
38	- Unfounded: the objection reflects a misunderstanding, missing information, or
39	an assumption the proposal already addresses. Requires clarification, not capitulation.
40
41	Step 5: Respond to Legitimate Objections
42	For each legitimate objection: what is the honest, direct response? Acknowledge the
43	concern genuinely. Address it specifically. Do not pretend it doesn't exist or soften
44	it into irrelevance — that will be noticed.
45
46	Step 6: Pre-emptive Move
47	For each significant objection: is there something in the message itself that could reduce
48	the objection's force without capitulating to it? Pre-empting an objection by raising it
49	yourself is more credible than responding to it when challenged.
50
51	---
52
53	## Human Check-in
54
55	Before proceeding, use the `AskUserQuestion` tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
56
57	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
58	- Header: "Scope"
59	- Options:
60	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
61	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
62	- Top 3 objections only — Most likely showstoppers, skip the full map
63	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
64
65	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
66
67	## Output Format
68
69	Proposal: [Summary — what is being asked and what is being proposed]
70
71	Objection map:
72
73	\| Audience segment \| Likely objection \| Legitimate / Unfounded \| Response \| Pre-emptive move \|
74	\|-----------------\|-----------------\|----------------------\|----------\|------------------\|
75	\| \| \| \| \| \|
76	\| \| \| \| \| \|
77
78	Objections to address in the message itself:
79	> [Which objections should be pre-empted in the proposal, not left for Q&A — and why]
80
81	Objections to prepare for but not address upfront:
82	> [Which are better handled in dialogue than in the message]
83
84	---
85
86	## Notes
87
88	The classification in Step 4 requires honesty. The temptation is to classify all
89	objections as unfounded — that they reflect misunderstanding rather than legitimate
90	concern. If an objection is legitimate and you dismiss it, you lose credibility on
91	everything else.
92
93	---
94
95	## What's Next
96
97	After delivering this output, use `AskUserQuestion` to offer the next move:
98
99	- Question: "Objections mapped. What's next?"
100	- Header: "Next"
101	- Options:
102	- `/s4h-writing-argument` — Build arguments that directly address each mapped objection
103	- `/s4h-communication-cl

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

s4h-communication-objection-mapping

205stars23forks

View on GitHub

How to install s4h-communication-objection-mapping?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-communication-objection-mapping

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-communication-objection-mapping

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Communication Objection Mapping
2
3	Anticipated objections feel handled. Unanticipated objections derail. The difference is
4	not the content of the objection — it is whether the receiver senses that the sender
5	has thought it through. A proposal that addresses likely objections before they are
6	raised signals rigor and respect. One that doesn't signals that the sender only thought
7	from their own perspective.
8
9	---
10
11	## Your Process
12
13	Step 1: State the Proposal
14	Write the proposal clearly — what is being asked, what it proposes to do, and what it
15	asks of the audience (approval, resources, behaviour change, belief change).
16
17	Framing check: Confirm the message, the audience, and the goal before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual proposal being analyzed, who it is directed at, and what it is asking them to do — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
18	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the proposal, its audience, and the outcome being sought]. Is that right?"
19	- Header: "Framing"
20	- Options:
21	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
22	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
23	- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
24
25	Step 2: List Audience Segments
26	Who will receive this? Different roles and individuals will have different objections.
27	A finance stakeholder's objection to a proposal is structurally different from an
28	engineering lead's, even if both say "this is risky."
29
30	Step 3: Generate Objections per Segment
31	For each segment: given what they care about and what they fear, what is their most
32	likely objection? Be specific — "they might push back on cost" is too vague. "They will
33	argue the ROI model assumes usage patterns that contradict last quarter's data" is useful.
34
35	Step 4: Classify Each Objection
36	- Legitimate: the objection raises a real concern the proposal should genuinely engage
37	with. Dismissing it will damage credibility.
38	- Unfounded: the objection reflects a misunderstanding, missing information, or
39	an assumption the proposal already addresses. Requires clarification, not capitulation.
40
41	Step 5: Respond to Legitimate Objections
42	For each legitimate objection: what is the honest, direct response? Acknowledge the
43	concern genuinely. Address it specifically. Do not pretend it doesn't exist or soften
44	it into irrelevance — that will be noticed.
45
46	Step 6: Pre-emptive Move
47	For each significant objection: is there something in the message itself that could reduce
48	the objection's force without capitulating to it? Pre-empting an objection by raising it
49	yourself is more credible than responding to it when challenged.
50
51	---
52
53	## Human Check-in
54
55	Before proceeding, use the `AskUserQuestion` tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
56
57	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
58	- Header: "Scope"
59	- Options:
60	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
61	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
62	- Top 3 objections only — Most likely showstoppers, skip the full map
63	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
64
65	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
66
67	## Output Format
68
69	Proposal: [Summary — what is being asked and what is being proposed]
70
71	Objection map:
72
73	\| Audience segment \| Likely objection \| Legitimate / Unfounded \| Response \| Pre-emptive move \|
74	\|-----------------\|-----------------\|----------------------\|----------\|------------------\|
75	\| \| \| \| \| \|
76	\| \| \| \| \| \|
77
78	Objections to address in the message itself:
79	> [Which objections should be pre-empted in the proposal, not left for Q&A — and why]
80
81	Objections to prepare for but not address upfront:
82	> [Which are better handled in dialogue than in the message]
83
84	---
85
86	## Notes
87
88	The classification in Step 4 requires honesty. The temptation is to classify all
89	objections as unfounded — that they reflect misunderstanding rather than legitimate
90	concern. If an objection is legitimate and you dismiss it, you lose credibility on
91	everything else.
92
93	---
94
95	## What's Next
96
97	After delivering this output, use `AskUserQuestion` to offer the next move:
98
99	- Question: "Objections mapped. What's next?"
100	- Header: "Next"
101	- Options:
102	- `/s4h-writing-argument` — Build arguments that directly address each mapped objection
103	- `/s4h-communication-cl

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type