npx skills add https://github.com/wondelai/skills --skill negotiation基于战术同理心的谈判框架,源自 FBI 人质谈判专家 Chris Voss。通过理解决策背后的情感驱动因素,并运用经过验证的技巧来建立融洽关系、发掘隐藏信息并达成更好的结果,从而改变任何谈判。
人们希望被理解并感到安全。 每一次谈判都是一次沟通行为,其目标是影响行为。通往“同意”的最有效途径是通过同理心、积极倾听和情商——而非逻辑、争论或妥协。
基础: 将每次谈判都视为一个发现过程。你的假设是需要验证的假设,而非需要捍卫的真理。关注对方的需求(尊重、安全、自主权),而非他们陈述的立场。永远不要折中妥协——没有协议总比糟糕的协议好。
目标:10/10。 在回顾或准备谈判时,根据对以下原则的遵守程度进行 0-10 分评分。10/10 意味着完全运用了战术同理心,准备了校准性问题,进行了指控审计,标注了情绪,达成了“没错”的回应,并积极探寻了黑天鹅事件;较低的分数表示错失了建立融洽关系、收集信息或改善交易的机会。始终提供当前分数以及达到 10/10 所需的具体改进措施。
核心理念: 有意识地想象自己处于对方的情境中,然后表达出他们的观点,以建立信任和开放感。
为何有效: 当人们感到被理解时,大脑化学物质会转向信任与合作。同理心可以绕过防御性反应,为真正的对话打开大门。这并非同意——你可以在理解他们立场的同时,倡导自己的立场。
关键见解:
产品应用场景:
| 场景 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
广告位招租
在这里展示您的产品或服务
触达数万 AI 开发者,精准高效
| 在提供解决方案前先承认对方的沮丧 |
| “我理解这次故障影响了您的团队按时交付的能力” |
| 销售电话 | 展示对潜在客户挑战的理解 | “听起来您这季度面临着展示成果的压力” |
| 价格讨论 | 预先承认预算限制 | “我知道现在在技术栈中再添加一个工具感觉有风险” |
| 合作伙伴谈判 | 展示对合作伙伴内部压力的理解 | “您的团队可能需要向领导层证明这一点” |
| 合同续签 | 认识到需求的变化 | “似乎自从我们上次交谈以来,您的优先事项已经发生了变化” |
文案模式:
道德边界: 运用同理心是为了真诚地理解,而非操纵情绪。战术同理心建立的是真实的关系,而非剥削性的关系。
核心理念: 用好奇、上扬的语调重复对方所说的最后 1-3 个关键词,然后保持沉默。
为何有效: 镜像法通过传递深度倾听的信号来创造熟悉感和融洽关系。它能在不直接提问的情况下促使对方详细阐述,使人们感到被倾听,同时揭示出比他们原本打算分享的更多的信息。
关键见解:
产品应用场景:
| 场景 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 发现电话 | 镜像关键关切点以获取详细说明 | 客户:“时间很紧。” 你:“时间很紧?” |
| 用户访谈 | 鼓励对痛点进行更深入的解释 | 用户:“就是很令人沮丧。” 你:“令人沮丧?” |
| 异议处理 | 反映异议以了解根本原因 | “不符合您的预算?” |
| 谈判邮件 | 在书面回复中镜像关键短语 | “您提到这个合作‘没有意义’...” |
| 反馈会议 | 鼓励对模糊反馈进行详细说明 | “不完全符合您的预期?” |
文案模式:
道德边界: 镜像法是为了理解,而非操纵人们透露他们想保密的信息。
核心理念: 使用中性短语识别并表达对方的情绪或观点:“似乎...”、“听起来...”、“看起来...”
为何有效: 命名情绪可以验证它们并削弱其力量。标注负面情绪会降低其强度;标注正面情绪会增强它们。试探性的措辞(“似乎...”)给对方纠正你的空间,无论哪种情况都能加深对话。
关键见解:
产品应用场景:
| 场景 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 客户投诉 | 在解决问题之前先说出沮丧感 | “听起来您对我们的响应时间感到失望” |
| 销售异议 | 标注潜在的担忧 | “似乎您对实施风险有所顾虑” |
| 团队冲突 | 揭示未言明的紧张关系 | “看起来大家对决策方式有些不满” |
| 价格抵制 | 承认情绪反应 | “似乎这个价格与您目前看到的价值脱节了” |
| 防止流失 | 识别离开的真正原因 | “听起来自从您最初签约以来,情况发生了变化” |
文案模式:
道德边界: 标注情绪是为了表示理解,而非利用他人的感受来对付他们。
核心理念: 开放式的“如何...?”和“什么...?”问题,在引导对话的同时,给对方一种掌控的错觉。
为何有效: 校准性问题能调动对方解决问题的思维,让他们感觉自己在掌控局面,而你则在引导对话。它们避免了“为什么?”(听起来像指责)所引起的防御心理,并迫使对方考虑你的立场,而无需你直接陈述。
关键见解:
产品应用场景:
| 场景 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 价格谈判 | 在不拒绝的情况下进行反驳 | “我该如何以那个价格做到这一点?” |
| 范围蔓延 | 让他们自己承担限制 | “如果我们增加这个,时间线会怎么样?” |
| 利益相关者协调 | 发现隐藏的决策者 | “您的团队通常如何做出此类决策?” |
| 合同条款 | 揭示实施方面的顾虑 | “您这边的审批流程是怎样的?” |
| 功能请求 | 引导至真实需求 | “您试图解决的最大挑战是什么?” |
文案模式:
道德边界: 使用校准性问题是为了创造真正的协作,而非诱使人们做出他们不想做的承诺。
核心理念: 在谈判前,列出并预先说出对方可能想到或说出的关于你的所有负面事情。
为何有效: 在对方之前说出恐惧和批评,会削弱它们的力量。这通常会引发安慰(“哦,我并不那么认为...”),或者至少能中和反对意见。通过首先解决房间里的大象,你展示了自我意识并建立了信任。
关键见解:
产品应用场景:
| 场景 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 涨价通知 | 在解释之前先化解愤怒 | “您可能认为我们不重视您的忠诚...” |
| 销售冷接触 | 承认打扰 | “我知道您很忙,最不想听的就是另一个销售说辞...” |
| 困难的产品反馈 | 消除防御心理 | “您可能认为我们没有听取您的反馈...” |
| 合同重新谈判 | 解决权力不平衡 | “您可能觉得我们想从这个合作中榨取更多...” |
| 服务失败恢复 | 完全承认失败 | “您可能很生气,您完全有权利生气...” |
文案模式:
道德边界: 使用指控审计是通过透明度建立信任,而非预先压制合理的顾虑。
核心理念: 如此准确地总结对方的立场——事实、情绪和顾虑——以至于他们回应“没错”。这是任何谈判中的突破性时刻。
为何有效: “没错”表明对方感到被完全理解。它创造了真正的融洽关系,并将他们的心态从对抗性转变为协作性。这与“您说得对”(这通常意味着他们在敷衍你)有根本区别。
关键见解:
产品应用场景:
| 场景 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 销售成交 | 在提议前总结他们的需求 | “所以您的团队需要 X,您担心 Y,而 Z 是交易破坏者...” |
| 客户留存 | 表明您理解他们离开的原因 | “让我确认一下:产品没有兑现我们承诺的...” |
| 利益相关者支持 | 在推销前总结顾虑 | “我听到的是,考虑到当前的路线图,风险感觉太高了...” |
| 团队协调 | 在引导前先确认 | “所以顾虑是,这项计划会让团队过于紧张...” |
| 谈判结束 | 在确定条款前确认理解 | “让我确认一下我理解了:您需要[X],在[日期]之前,并且有[限制条件]...” |
文案模式:
道德边界: 通过真正的理解来寻求“没错”,而非通过操纵性地重新构建他们的立场。
核心理念: 一种系统的货币谈判方法,使用递减增量的计算报价(65% -> 85% -> 95% -> 100%),并配合精确的非整数数字和最终的非货币奖励。
为何有效: 递减增量表明你正在接近你的极限。精确的非整数数字($47,235 对比 $47,000)让人感觉是经过计算且最终的——就好像你真的已经推到了绝对最大值。最后的非货币礼物在极限处展示了慷慨,使得他们在心理上更难要求更多。
关键见解:
产品应用场景:
| 场景 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 薪资谈判 | 系统地构建还价 | 目标 $120K:以 $78K 开始讨论,移动到 $102K,$114K,最终 $120,350 + 额外带薪休假 |
| 供应商定价 | 有条不紊地降低价格 | 目标 $50K:以 $32.5K 开始,移动到 $42.5K,$47.5K,最终 $49,850 + 延长付款期限 |
| 合同价值 | 战略性地锚定和增量 | 设定目标,以低价开始,以精确数字和递减幅度让步 |
| SaaS 企业交易 | 多年期定价谈判 | 在合同年限中使用递减的折扣增量 |
| 自由职业费率 | 基于项目的谈判 | 以较低范围锚定,以精确的总数逐步扩大范围 |
文案模式:
道德边界: 使用阿克曼法进行公平谈判,而非压价或利用缺乏谈判技巧的人。
核心理念: 隐藏的、能够改变游戏规则的信息,一旦被发现,可以彻底改变谈判。每次谈判大约潜伏着三个黑天鹅事件。
为何有效: 当关键信息保持隐藏时,谈判就会陷入僵局或失败。黑天鹅事件是未知的未知因素——秘密的限制、隐藏的动机或未知的背景——它们解释了看似不合理的行为。即使发现一个,也能将僵局转变为突破。
关键见解:
产品应用场景:
| 场景 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 企业销售 | 发现隐藏的预算或时间限制 | “如果这个问题在第三季度前没有解决,内部会发生什么?” |
| 流失分析 | 揭示取消背后的真实原因 | “似乎情况发生了变化——发生了什么?” |
| 合作伙伴交易 | 揭示未言明的战略动机 | “这如何融入您明年的更大规划?” |
| 招聘谈判 | 发现候选人的真正优先事项 | “什么会让您后悔不接受这个 offer?” |
| 竞争情况 | 揭示关于竞争报价的信息 | “听起来您在权衡其他选择——什么能帮助您做决定?” |
文案模式:
道德边界: 探寻黑天鹅事件是为了为双方创造更好的结果,而非利用私人或敏感信息。
他们说“这不公平”:
他们用一个极端数字锚定:
他们停止回应:
他们看起来不合理:
根据对方的谈判风格调整你的方法:
| 风格 | 迹象 | 适应方法 |
|---|---|---|
| 分析型 | 有条不紊、数据驱动、讨厌意外 | 使用事实,保持耐心,不要催促 |
| 迁就型 | 友好、注重关系、避免冲突 | 建立融洽关系,但要明确具体细节 |
| 果断型 | 直接、时间意识强、想赢 | 保持高效,立场坚定,承认他们的观点 |
见解: 优秀的谈判者会根据需要借鉴所有三种风格。
| 错误 | 为何失败 | 修正方法 |
|---|---|---|
| 折中妥协 | 创造双方都不满意的平庸结果 | 坚持立场;没有协议总比糟糕的协议好 |
| 追求“是” | 让人们产生防御心理并产生虚假的同意 | 追求“没错”的回应;让他们先说“不” |
| 争论你的立场 | 引发抵抗并关闭倾听 | 使用校准性问题和标注法让他们说话 |
| 跳过指控审计 | 未解决的异议会恶化并在以后破坏谈判 | 列出他们可能想到的所有负面想法;尽早解决 |
| 立即反驳极端锚定 | 将他们的锚定验证为起点 | 镜像、标注、询问“您是如何得出这个数字的?” |
| 使用“为什么?” | 听起来像指责并引发防御心理 | 用“什么”和“如何”问题替代 |
| 将“您说得对”视为成功 | 这意味着他们想让你走开,而非他们同意 | 继续努力达成“没错”的回应 |
审计任何谈判准备或实时互动:
| 问题 | 如果否 | 行动 |
|---|---|---|
| 我准备好指控审计了吗? | 异议会让你措手不及 | 列出他们可能想到的所有负面想法;尽早解决 |
| 我有 3-5 个校准性问题准备吗? | 你会默认进行争论 | 起草针对他们需求的“如何”和“什么”问题 |
| 我确定我的 BATNA 了吗? | 你会在压力下接受糟糕的交易 | 在谈判前定义你的退出点 |
| 我的目标是“没错”吗? | 你会追求虚假的“是” | 总结他们的立场,直到他们真诚地确认 |
| 我考虑过他们的谈判风格吗? | 一刀切的方法会失败 | 评估他们是分析型、迁就型还是果断型 |
| 我在探寻黑天鹅事件吗? | 你会错过改变游戏规则的信息 | 保持好奇心;留意异常情况;询问意外之事 |
此技能基于 Chris Voss 作为 FBI 人质谈判专家的研究和经验。关于完整的方法论、案例研究和高级技巧:
Chris Voss 是前 FBI 首席国际绑架谈判专家,也是 Black Swan Group 的创始人,这是一家培训企业战术谈判的咨询公司。在 FBI 24 年的职业生涯中,Voss 是局里国际绑架案件的首席谈判专家,并在全球处理了 150 多起人质事件。他曾在哈佛法学院、乔治城大学麦克多诺商学院和麻省理工学院斯隆管理学院教授谈判课程。《Never Split the Difference》已成为全球最广泛推荐的商业书籍之一,并被翻译成数十种语言。Voss 的方法现在被《财富》500 强公司、执法机构和各行各业的专业人士所使用。
每周安装量
322
代码库
GitHub 星标数
255
首次出现
2026 年 2 月 5 日
安全审计
安装于
opencode300
codex295
gemini-cli294
github-copilot289
cursor288
kimi-cli285
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:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Customer support | Acknowledge frustration before offering solutions | "I understand this outage is affecting your team's ability to deliver on deadline" |
| Sales calls | Demonstrate understanding of prospect's challenges | "It sounds like you're under pressure to show results this quarter" |
| Pricing conversations | Acknowledge budget constraints upfront | "I know that adding another tool to the stack feels risky right now" |
| Partnership negotiations | Show understanding of partner's internal pressures | "Your team probably needs to justify this to leadership" |
| Contract renewals | Recognize changing needs | "It seems like your priorities have shifted since we last spoke" |
Copy patterns:
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:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Discovery calls | Mirror key concerns to get elaboration | Client: "The timeline is tight." You: "The timeline is tight?" |
| User interviews | Encourage deeper explanation of pain points | User: "It's just frustrating." You: "Frustrating?" |
| Objection handling | Reflect objection to understand root cause | "Doesn't fit your budget?" |
| Negotiation emails | Mirror key phrases in written responses | "You mentioned the partnership 'doesn't make sense'..." |
| Feedback sessions | Encourage elaboration on vague feedback | "Not quite what you expected?" |
Copy patterns:
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:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Customer complaints | Name the frustration before solving | "It sounds like you feel let down by our response time" |
| Sales objections | Label the underlying concern | "It seems like there's a concern about implementation risk" |
| Team conflicts | Surface unspoken tensions | "It looks like there's frustration about how decisions are being made" |
| Pricing pushback | Acknowledge the emotional reaction | "It seems like the price feels disconnected from the value you've seen so far" |
| Churn prevention | Identify the real reason for leaving | "It sounds like something changed since you first signed up" |
Copy patterns:
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:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Price negotiation | Push back without refusing | "How am I supposed to do that at that price point?" |
| Scope creep | Make them own the constraint | "What happens to the timeline if we add this?" |
| Stakeholder alignment | Uncover hidden decision-makers | "How does your team typically make decisions like this?" |
| Contract terms | Surface implementation concerns | "What does the approval process look like on your end?" |
| Feature requests | Redirect to real needs | "What's the biggest challenge you're trying to solve?" |
Copy patterns:
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:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Price increase announcement | Preempt anger before explaining | "You're probably thinking we don't value your loyalty..." |
| Sales cold outreach | Acknowledge the intrusion | "I know you're busy and the last thing you want is another sales pitch..." |
| Difficult product feedback | Disarm defensiveness | "You might think we haven't been listening to your feedback..." |
| Contract renegotiation | Address power imbalance | "You probably feel like we're trying to squeeze more out of this..." |
| Service failure recovery | Own the failure fully | "You're probably furious, and you have every right to be..." |
Copy patterns:
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:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Sales closing | Summarize their needs before proposing | "So your team needs X, you're worried about Y, and Z is the deal-breaker..." |
| Customer retention | Show you understand why they're leaving | "Let me make sure I have this: the product isn't delivering on the promise we made..." |
| Stakeholder buy-in | Summarize concerns before pitching | "What I'm hearing is that the risk feels too high given the current roadmap..." |
| Team alignment | Validate before redirecting | "So the concern is that this initiative will stretch the team too thin..." |
| Negotiation closure | Confirm understanding before terms | "Let me make sure I understand: you need [X], by [date], and [constraint]..." |
Copy patterns:
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:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Salary negotiation | Structure counter-offers systematically | Target $120K: open discussion at $78K, move to $102K, $114K, final $120,350 + extra PTO |
| Vendor pricing | Methodical price reduction | Target $50K: start at $32.5K, move to $42.5K, $47.5K, final $49,850 + extended payment terms |
| Contract value | Anchor and increment strategically | Set target, open low, concede in shrinking amounts with precise figures |
| SaaS enterprise deals | Multi-year pricing negotiations | Use decreasing discount increments across contract years |
| Freelance rates | Project-based negotiation | Anchor with lower scope, expand incrementally with precise totals |
Copy patterns:
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:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise sales | Discover hidden budget or timeline constraints | "What happens internally if this doesn't get resolved by Q3?" |
| Churn analysis | Uncover the real reason behind cancellation | "It seems like something changed -- what happened?" |
| Partnership deals | Surface unstated strategic motivations | "How does this fit into your bigger picture for next year?" |
| Hiring negotiations | Discover candidate's true priorities | "What would make you regret not taking this offer?" |
| Competitive situations | Reveal information about competing offers | "It sounds like you're weighing other options -- what would help you decide?" |
Copy patterns:
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:
Adapt your approach based on their negotiation style:
| Style | Signs | Adapt by... |
|---|---|---|
| Analyst | Methodical, data-driven, hates surprises | Use facts, be patient, don't rush |
| Accommodator | Friendly, relationship-focused, avoids conflict | Build rapport, but pin down specifics |
| Assertive | Direct, time-conscious, wants to win | Be efficient, stand firm, acknowledge their points |
Insight: Great negotiators borrow from all three styles as needed.
| Mistake | Why It Fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Splitting the difference | Creates lukewarm outcomes nobody is happy with | Hold firm; no deal is better than a bad deal |
| Pushing for "yes" | Makes people defensive and produces counterfeit agreement | Pursue "That's right" instead; let them say "No" first |
| Arguing your position | Triggers resistance and shuts down listening | Use calibrated questions and labels to let them talk |
| Skipping the accusation audit | Unaddressed objections fester and derail later | List every negative they might think; address them early |
| Countering an extreme anchor immediately | Validates their anchor as the starting point | Mirror, label, ask "How did you arrive at that?" |
| Using "Why?" | Sounds accusatory and triggers defensiveness | Replace with "What" and "How" questions |
Audit any negotiation preparation or live interaction:
| Question | If No | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Have I prepared an accusation audit? | Objections will blindside you | List every negative they might think; address early |
| Do I have 3-5 calibrated questions ready? | You'll default to arguing | Draft "How" and "What" questions targeting their needs |
| Have I identified my BATNA? | You'll accept a bad deal under pressure | Define your walk-away point before negotiating |
| Am I aiming for "That's right"? | You'll chase counterfeit "yes" | Summarize their position until they affirm genuinely |
| Have I considered their negotiation style? | One-size-fits-all approach will misfire | Assess if they're Analyst, Accommodator, or Assertive |
| Am I hunting for Black Swans? | You'll miss game-changing information | Stay curious; watch for anomalies; ask about the unexpected |
This skill is based on Chris Voss's research and experience as an FBI hostage negotiator. For the complete methodology, case studies, and advanced techniques:
Chris Voss is a former FBI lead international kidnapping negotiator and the founder of the Black Swan Group, a consulting firm that trains businesses in tactical negotiation. During his 24-year career at the FBI, Voss was the Bureau's lead negotiator for international kidnapping cases and worked more than 150 hostage situations worldwide. He has taught negotiation at Harvard Law School, Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business, and MIT's Sloan School of Management. Never Split the Difference has become one of the most widely recommended business books in the world and has been translated into dozens of languages. Voss's methods are now used by Fortune 500 companies, law enforcement agencies, and professionals across every industry.
Weekly Installs
322
Repository
GitHub Stars
255
First Seen
Feb 5, 2026
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykPass
Installed on
opencode300
codex295
gemini-cli294
github-copilot289
cursor288
kimi-cli285
Perl 5.36+ 现代开发模式与最佳实践 | 构建健壮可维护应用程序指南
717 周安装
Grimoire Pendle 技能:Pendle 元数据检查与路由预检工具 | 区块链开发
937 周安装
gifgrep:命令行搜索下载GIF工具,支持Tenor/Giphy,提取静态帧和帧序列图
312 周安装
小红书封面生成器 - 一键生成小红书风格封面图片,支持自定义主题,AI驱动
950 周安装
Scrapling官方网络爬虫框架 - 自适应解析、绕过Cloudflare、Python爬虫库
952 周安装
Manim Composer:AI 驱动的 3Blue1Brown 风格数学动画制作工具
946 周安装
GitHub PRD 撰写与提交指南:15分钟完成产品需求文档和Pull Request
952 周安装
| It means they want you to go away, not that they agree |
| Keep working toward "That's right" |