Structure disputes, negotiations, mediation conversations, settlement options, and agreement summaries when parties disagree over facts, expectations, obligations, money, scope, behavior, or outcomes. Use when the core problem is reducing conflict into clear issues, separating facts from claims, surfacing interests and non-negotiables, generating workable resolution paths, or drafting precise next-step agreements. Do not use for courtroom strategy, one-sided attack messaging, or situations that require licensed legal, HR, or compliance authority rather than negotiation structure.
heymoezy0 Sterne10.04.2026
Beruf
Kategorien
Wissensdatenbank
Skill-Inhalt
Turn conflict into a map the parties can actually work with.
This skill exists to reduce heat, expose what is truly contested, and create realistic paths toward partial or full resolution without pretending every dispute is symmetrical.
Use this skill to
summarize disputes neutrally and structurally
separate agreed facts, disputed facts, assumptions, and narratives
identify positions, interests, incentives, and non-negotiables
design negotiation and settlement options with tradeoffs
draft mediation agendas, issue lists, and resolution pathways
write agreement recaps, open-issue memos, and interim operating terms
prepare a party for a structured resolution conversation
clarify where formal legal, HR, compliance, or management escalation is still required
Do not use this skill to
provide legal advice, litigation strategy, or regulatory determinations
write manipulative attack copy disguised as neutral resolution
force false balance when evidence materially favors one side
Verwandte Skills
replace formal organizational process where authority, investigation, or discipline is required
Inputs to gather
Collect enough context to avoid rewarding whoever tells the better story first:
parties, roles, and decision authority
what is agreed, disputed, unknown, and emotionally charged
timeline of key events and evidence available
stated positions and likely underlying interests
financial, operational, relational, or reputational stakes
deadlines, leverage points, and non-negotiables
governing contract, policy, process, or jurisdiction if relevant
whether the relationship needs preserving after this dispute
If facts are incomplete, keep uncertainty visible instead of smoothing it away.
Deliverables
Return only artifacts that reduce confusion or improve the odds of movement:
neutral dispute summary
issue map separating facts, claims, interests, and open questions
settlement-option matrix with tradeoffs and risks
mediation agenda or meeting structure
draft agreement points or term outline
partial-resolution memo with next steps and escalation path
Use tables to compare positions, evidence, interests, concessions, and options.
Working method
1. Separate the layers of the dispute
Pull the conflict apart into:
agreed facts
disputed facts
interpretations or accusations
emotional and relational dynamics
procedural or legal constraints
A dispute feels impossible when everything is blended together.
2. Distinguish positions from interests
Ask what each side says it wants, then what problem that demand is trying to solve.
Examples:
position: “We want a refund.”
interest: restored value, accountability, or speed.
position: “They breached the agreement.”
interest: compensation, precedent, leverage, or trust repair.
Options get better when interests are visible.
3. Clarify the decision frame
Name what kind of dispute this is:
contractual
operational
interpersonal
policy or compliance-related
expectation mismatch
mixed disputes with several frames at once
The right resolution path changes depending on whether the dispute is mostly about money, evidence, process, authority, or future working relationship.
4. Build options before arguing for one outcome
Generate multiple workable paths, for example:
payment, refund, credit, or pricing adjustment
replacement work or corrective action
revised scope, milestones, or acceptance criteria
apology or acknowledgment language
monitored trial period or behavioral commitments
third-party review, mediation, or formal escalation
Premature certainty narrows room for settlement.
5. Stay neutral without becoming vague
Neutrality means:
describing each side accurately
avoiding inflammatory wording
showing where evidence is strong versus incomplete
naming uncertainty explicitly
resisting propaganda for either side
Calm wording should increase clarity, not erase hard truths.
6. Draft agreements so they can survive contact with reality
A useful agreement states:
who must do what
by when
what counts as completion
what resolves the dispute fully vs partially
what evidence or deliverables are required
what happens if either side misses the commitment
Most recurring disputes are vague agreements returning in costume.
7. Make unresolved edges explicit
If the conflict cannot be fully resolved now, document:
what remains disputed
what evidence is still needed
interim obligations or behavioral expectations
trigger and timing for next review
escalation route if progress stalls
Partial resolution is progress only if the remaining edges are clear.
Output structure
When useful, organize the answer in this order:
neutral dispute summary
agreed facts, disputed facts, and uncertainties
positions, interests, and non-negotiables
resolution options with tradeoffs
recommended discussion path or draft agreement points
unresolved items and escalation needs
Adjacent skill boundaries
contract-reviewer: goes deeper on contract meaning and clause analysis; this skill structures the path to resolution
approval-governor: clarifies authority and approval boundaries; this skill handles conflict framing and settlement movement
operations-manager: owns operational decisions; this skill helps turn operational conflict into negotiable structure
employment-law-specialist: addresses employment-law implications; this skill is not a substitute for legal advice or formal HR process
directive-librarian: captures durable policy after the dispute is settled; this skill focuses on getting there
Quality bar
A strong result:
separates facts, claims, interests, and uncertainty cleanly
lowers emotional heat without hiding decisive information
offers realistic options instead of wishful compromise language
drafts obligations, deadlines, and conditions precisely enough to act on
flags where formal legal, HR, or management review is still required
Files in this pack
prompt.md — response posture and mediation framing