Name: Negotiate
Author: jonalexjames84

SkillsPool

搜索技能.../

Negotiate | Skills Pool

Calculate true departure cost: The user is not just comparing offer vs. current comp — they are forfeiting accumulated benefits. Itemize what they lose by leaving: unvested RSUs (remaining vest schedule × current price), pension accrual (years to vesting or to enhanced benefit), deferred comp payouts (timing and tax implications), retiree healthcare (estimated annual value × expected years of use), 401k match forfeiture (if vesting schedule is incomplete), sabbatical eligibility, or any tenure-based perks (extra PTO, stock purchase discount tiers). Present as: "Departure Cost Analysis: By leaving [Company] now, you forfeit approximately $[X] in unvested/accumulated benefits over the next [Y] years."
Bridge the gap explicitly in the counter: The departure cost must be reflected in the counter-offer, not absorbed silently. Strategies:
- Sign-on bonus as forfeiture offset: "I'm forfeiting $[X] in unvested RSUs by leaving [Company]. A sign-on of $[Y] would offset this forfeiture and make the transition financially viable." This is standard practice — companies expect to "buy out" unvested comp for senior hires.
- Equity front-loading: Request a front-loaded vesting schedule (e.g., 40/30/20/10 instead of 25/25/25/25) or an accelerated first-year vest to replace the steady income from the legacy employer's vesting schedule.
- Guaranteed bonus Year 1: If the legacy employer pays predictable annual bonuses based on tenure/seniority, request a guaranteed (not target) bonus for Year 1 at the new company to replace the certainty.
Pension/defined benefit replacement: If the user has a pension or defined benefit plan:
- Calculate the annual pension value they are forfeiting (estimated annual payout × years they would have received it, discounted to present value).
- Frame the negotiation: "My pension at [Company] vests fully in [X] years and represents approximately $[Y] in lifetime value. I need the equity component of this offer to provide comparable long-term financial security."
- Push for: larger equity grant, equity acceleration on termination without cause, or a supplemental retirement contribution (some companies offer this for VP+ hires).
RSU vesting cliff replacement: If the user has RSUs about to vest (within 6-12 months), the standard approach is:
- "I have $[X] in RSUs vesting at [Company] over the next [Y] months. I'd like to discuss a sign-on that accounts for this forfeiture, structured as [lump sum / matching vest schedule]."
- Some companies will match the vesting schedule (e.g., pay $50K at 3 months, $50K at 6 months) to mirror what the candidate is leaving behind.
Healthcare/benefits gap: For users leaving companies with premium benefits (retiree healthcare, Cadillac health plans, generous parental/family leave they may still use), flag any benefits downgrade: "The benefits package at [new company] has a higher out-of-pocket maximum and no retiree healthcare benefit. This represents approximately $[X]/year in additional cost. Factor this into your total comp comparison."
Tone for legacy departure: The negotiation tone should acknowledge the gravity of leaving a long-tenure position: "I'm making a deliberate decision to leave a stable, well-compensated position for this opportunity. I want the package to reflect that commitment." This is NOT weakness — it signals the candidate is serious, thoughtful, and expects to be treated accordingly.
Never let departure cost be invisible. Many 15+ year veterans accept offers without calculating what they forfeit. The negotiate skill MUST always surface the departure cost analysis when tenure exceeds 10 years, even if the user does not ask for it.

CRITICAL: Do NOT let the user accept a level-down offer just because of the gap. If they were a Senior PM before the break, they should negotiate for Senior PM, not PM. The gap does not erase the skills -- it pauses the timeline. Level determines comp band ceiling, promotion timeline, and peer calibration for the next 2-3 years. Accepting the wrong level compounds into a multi-year disadvantage.
Counter-argument for gap-based down-leveling: "My [X] years of pre-break experience included [specific scope: team size, revenue owned, user base]. The skills that drove those results don't atrophy -- here's evidence I've stayed current: [certifications, freelance projects, coursework, advisory roles from experience-library.md]. I'd like to discuss entering at [pre-gap level], which aligns with where I'll contribute from day one."
Return-to-work / returnship program offers: If the offer comes through a returnship program (Path Forward, iRelaunch, company-specific), note that these often convert at a lower level than the candidate's pre-gap seniority. Negotiate the conversion level upfront: "I'd like to discuss the expected conversion level now rather than leaving it ambiguous. Based on my pre-break scope, I'd expect to convert at [level]. Could we agree on the criteria and timeline for that conversion?"
Gap-based comp discounting: Flag if the comp offer is significantly below the user's pre-gap comp (adjusted for market changes since the gap). Compare the offer against CURRENT market rates at the offered level, not the user's pre-gap comp. If the offer is below current market P50 for the level, it may indicate gap-based discounting: "This offer is at P[X] for [level]. Market data shows P50 at $[Y]. I'd like to discuss positioning at P50, which reflects the current market for this level regardless of my career timeline."
Sign-on as gap bridge: If there is a comp gap between the pre-gap trajectory and the current offer, push for a sign-on bonus to bridge the transition: "A sign-on of $[X] would help bridge the transition back to a full-time role. It's a one-time cost that makes this move work for me."

CRITICAL: Never reveal current comp. The gap is large enough that disclosure undermines credibility. If asked directly: "I'm focused on what's competitive for this level at [Company]. My research shows the range is $[X]-$[Y] based on levels.fyi and Glassdoor data."
If current comp was already disclosed: Immediately reframe: "My comp at [Company] reflects their unique structure — [Company] is [private with no equity / Midwest-headquartered / non-profit] and compensates differently than the broader market. The market rate for this role is $[X]-$[Y], and that's the benchmark I'm using."
Pre-disclosure prep script: Before any recruiter call, generate a rehearsed deflection: "If asked about current comp: 'I'd prefer to focus on the market rate for this role. My research shows $[range]. What does your band look like for this level?' If they push: 'My current employer has a non-standard comp model that doesn't translate well to market benchmarks. I'm targeting $[target] based on my scope and market data.'"
Counter-offer anchoring: Anchor to market rate for the target company/level, never to current comp. Even if the counter represents a 40-70% increase over current comp, frame it as "targeting P50-P60 for this level" — which is a legitimate, data-backed ask. The size of the increase is irrelevant; what matters is where the ask falls in the company's band.
Avoid over-gratitude tone: Candidates making large comp jumps often unconsciously signal "I can't believe you're offering this much" through deferential language. The skill must use the same confident, data-backed tone regardless of the delta between current and offered comp. Never write "I really appreciate this generous offer" — write "Thank you for the offer. I'd like to discuss a few components."
Salary history ban law integration: Check the target role's location against salary history ban jurisdictions. States with bans include: California, New York, Colorado, Washington, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, plus many major cities (NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, etc.). If the role is in a ban jurisdiction AND the recruiter or application asks for current or prior salary, arm the user with the legal backstop: "That information is protected under [State]'s salary history law. I'd prefer to focus on the market rate for this role — my research shows $[range]." This is the user's strongest shield and should be layered on TOP of the deflection scripts above. If the role is in a non-ban jurisdiction, note: "This state does not have a salary history ban. Use the deflection scripts above, but be aware the company CAN legally ask. The scripts are designed to redirect without refusing."
Post-verification disclosure contingency: Some companies run employment verification (via background check or reference check) that may surface prior compensation. If this occurs after an offer is made, prepare the user: "If the background check reveals your prior comp, here is the script: 'As I mentioned, my prior employer has a non-standard comp model — [private company/no equity/Midwest-anchored]. That comp reflected their structure, not my market value. The offer we discussed is aligned with market data for this level, which is the right benchmark.' Do not apologize for the gap or volunteer further explanation. The offer was made based on your qualifications and the market — your prior comp is irrelevant to the value you bring."
No-equity-to-equity transition support: If the candidate is coming from a no-equity employer (like Epic, government, academia, or bootstrapped startups), add an equity education primer to the negotiation prep: briefly explain RSU vs. ISO vs. NSO, vesting schedules (standard 4-year with 1-year cliff), refresh grant cadences (annual at public companies), and how to value private company equity (apply 50-75% discount to paper value unless company is late-stage with clear IPO/acquisition timeline). This is not condescension — it is closing a structural knowledge gap created by the prior employer's comp model, and ensures the candidate negotiates equity effectively rather than defaulting to "I'll just focus on base."
Zero-equity employer negotiation angle: Since there is no forfeited equity to buy out, reframe the sign-on request as "transition investment" rather than "forfeiture offset." Request more equity in the package since there is no equity-vesting pattern to replace. Candidates from zero-equity employers may have unusually strong liquid savings -- consider requesting equity-heavy packages with lower base if the company's equity is compelling.

Comp structure: Base + performance bonus (typically 15-30% at Director+) + equity + sign-on. Marketing bonus is often tied to pipeline/MQL targets, not company-wide performance.
Priority order: base > bonus structure (tied to controllable metrics) > equity > sign-on > team headcount
Key negotiation levers: marketing budget authority (larger budget = more impact = higher future comp), team headcount, conference/event budget, agency relationships
Watch for: bonus tied to revenue targets the marketer doesn't control (e.g., sales closing rate). Push for bonus tied to marketing-controlled metrics (MQLs, pipeline, brand awareness).
Sub-function comp differential: Growth/performance marketing Directors at PLG companies typically earn 10-20% above brand marketing Directors at the same level. When anchoring comp expectations, identify whether the role is growth/demand-gen/performance marketing vs. brand/comms/content marketing and anchor to the correct sub-function benchmark. If the offer blends both, anchor to the higher-paying sub-function: "This role owns both brand and demand generation. Demand-gen Directors at PLG companies at this level benchmark 10-20% higher than pure brand roles -- I'd like to anchor to that range given the full scope."
Marketing-specific scope negotiation: Beyond comp, negotiate scope levers that determine future comp trajectory and career capital:
- Channel ownership breadth: How many channels does the role own? Owning paid + organic + lifecycle vs. only paid acquisition is a materially different scope. More channels = more headcount = Director+ trajectory. Push for clarity: "I want to confirm the role owns [list channels]. If it's narrower, that changes the level and comp conversation."
- Agency spend authority: Direct control of agency budgets ($500K+ annually) is a scope signal that justifies Director-level comp. If the role manages agencies, negotiate explicit budget authority: "What is the agency spend I'd manage directly? A $[X]M agency budget is Director-scope responsibility and should be reflected in the comp."
- Cross-functional dotted lines: Marketing roles that have dotted-line influence over PM (product-led growth) or Sales (enablement, pipeline handoff) are higher-impact and should comp accordingly. Negotiate for explicit cross-functional authority in the role description if it exists informally: "This role partners closely with Product and Sales on pipeline. I'd like to see that cross-functional scope reflected in the job architecture."
Performance bonus nuance: Push hard for bonus tied to marketing-controlled metrics, not downstream sales outcomes:
- Good bonus metrics (negotiate for these): Pipeline generated, MQLs, CAC efficiency, brand lift scores, website traffic/conversion, email engagement, campaign ROAS. These are directly within marketing's control.
- Bad bonus metrics (negotiate away from these): Sales close rate, revenue closed-won, net retention. These depend on Sales execution, product quality, and customer success -- not marketing performance.
- Draft language: "I'd like to discuss the bonus structure. I want to ensure my variable comp is tied to metrics I can directly influence -- pipeline generated, MQL volume, and CAC targets -- rather than downstream conversion rates that depend on Sales execution. Can we align the bonus plan to marketing-controlled KPIs?"
- If bonus is partially tied to company revenue (common at Director+): Accept the company-revenue component but negotiate the split: "I'm comfortable with a portion tied to company performance, but I'd like at least 60-70% of the bonus weighted toward marketing-specific KPIs. That way both sides have alignment."

Comp structure: Base + equity + sign-on + bonus (typically 10-15% at Lead+). Design comp historically lags engineering comp by 10-20% at the same level — this is a known inequity to push back on.
Priority order for IC roles: base > equity (push for eng-parity) > scope/title > team size > sign-on > design tool budget
Priority order for Head of Design / Design Director: reporting line (CPO vs. CTO vs. CEO) > team headcount > design system ownership > base > equity > design tool budget. Reporting line determines scope, influence, and whether design has a seat at the strategy table. A Head of Design reporting to a CTO often means design is treated as a service org to engineering. Reporting to a CPO or CEO signals design as a strategic function. This single factor affects career trajectory, team growth, and future comp more than any dollar amount in the initial offer. Negotiate reporting line FIRST -- if the reporting line is wrong, negotiate to change it or factor the diminished scope into a higher comp ask to offset the career cost.
Key negotiation levers: design-to-engineering comp parity, team size, reporting line, design system ownership
Design-to-engineering comp parity (expanded): The 10-20% design-to-eng gap is well-documented and should be challenged directly in every negotiation. Use this specific language: "Your Staff Engineer band for this level is $[X]. Design leadership at this level drives equivalent business impact -- I designed the [specific feature/system] that drove [metric]. I'd like to benchmark against your engineering IC comp bands for this level." If they push back ("design and engineering are different ladders"), counter with: "I understand the ladders are separate, but the business impact is equivalent. A design system that reduces engineering build time by 30% or a redesign that lifts conversion by 15% has the same P&L impact as a Staff Engineer's infrastructure work. I'm asking for parity in recognition of that impact." Always have 2-3 specific impact examples ready from experience-library.md.
Research team access negotiation: If the role involves or should involve user research, negotiate for dedicated UX researchers reporting directly to design, not to PM or a shared research pool. Shared researchers get pulled to PM priorities, and design loses the ability to drive its own research agenda. Draft language: "I'd like to discuss the research team structure. In my experience, design teams produce significantly better outcomes when UX researchers report into design rather than a shared pool. Is there flexibility to structure a dedicated research function within the design org?" If the company has no researchers at all, negotiate a headcount commitment: "I'd like to include one UX researcher hire in my first-year headcount plan. Research-informed design reduces rework and accelerates shipping -- it pays for itself within two quarters."
Design exercise / case study compensation awareness: If the company required a design exercise, portfolio presentation, or case study during the interview process, recognize that this represents significant unpaid labor (often 10-20+ hours of work). While you should not demand payment for past interview work, use it as a signal of your investment and commitment during negotiation: "I invested significant time in the design exercise for this process because I'm genuinely excited about this role. That level of investment reflects my commitment -- I'd like the offer to reflect the same." This is a soft leverage point, not a hard ask, but it reinforces that the candidate is serious and has already demonstrated value.
Watch for: "We don't have a separate design leadership ladder" -- this often means design comp is capped at IC levels. Negotiate for the creation of the ladder or equivalent engineering-track comp. Also watch for: design tool budget being counted as "part of your comp" -- tools like Figma, Framer, or prototyping software are operational costs, not compensation. If a company frames tool access as a perk, push back: "Design tools are a cost of doing business, not a benefit. I'd expect those to be covered as operational expense, separate from the comp discussion."

Comp structure: Base + equity (often heavy at research-oriented companies) + sign-on + bonus. Research roles skew equity-heavy; applied ML roles are more balanced.
Priority order: base > equity (especially for MLE roles) > sign-on > scope/title > conference/publication support
Key negotiation levers: publication and conference support (NeurIPS/ICML attendance, paper budget), compute budget (access to GPU clusters), open-source contribution time, title (Data Scientist vs. ML Engineer vs. Research Scientist — each has different comp bands)
DS-to-MLE pay differential as negotiation lever: If transitioning from DS to MLE, or if the role blends DS and MLE responsibilities, anchor comp to the MLE band (typically 10-20% higher than DS at the same level). Use this specific framing: "This role involves production ML systems -- model deployment, inference optimization, and pipeline reliability. I'd like to benchmark against your MLE comp bands, not the DS ladder. The production ownership component is what differentiates MLE comp from DS comp." If the company pushes back ("we classify this as Data Science"), counter with: "I understand the title, but the responsibilities -- production model serving, CI/CD for ML pipelines, latency optimization -- are MLE work. I'd like comp to reflect the actual scope rather than the title." If they will not move on comp band classification, negotiate for an MLE title instead, which sets up future comp correctly: "If the comp band is fixed to DS, could we discuss an MLE title? That ensures my comp trajectory aligns with the production work I'll be doing."
Manager-level DS/MLE negotiation: For DS/MLE Manager, Senior Manager, or Director roles, negotiate beyond cash comp for scope commitments that determine effectiveness and career trajectory:
- Team headcount commitments: Get a written or documented commitment to team size. "I'd like to confirm the team headcount plan for Year 1. Managing a team of 3 vs. 8 is a fundamentally different scope -- and I want to ensure the headcount plan matches the level and comp of this role." Push for specific approved headcount, not vague "we'll grow the team."
- Compute budget authority: Negotiate explicit authority over compute spend. "What compute budget will I have direct authority over? I'd like to understand whether I'll need to go through a centralized approval process for GPU allocation or whether I'll have a dedicated budget." A clear compute budget (even $200K-$500K/year) signals the company is serious about ML investment. Lack of one signals ML may be under-resourced.
- Conference and publication budget: Negotiate a per-person annual conference budget ($5K-$10K per IC for top-tier conferences: NeurIPS, ICML, KDD, AAAI). This is a recruiting and retention tool, not a perk. Frame it as such: "A conference budget of $[X] per team member annually is standard for competitive ML teams. It's also a retention lever -- ML engineers expect publication and conference support."
- Patent bonus structure: If the company has a patent program, negotiate the bonus structure upfront. Standard ranges are $2K-$10K per patent filing, $5K-$15K per grant. "Does the company have a patent incentive program? I'd like to understand the bonus structure for patent filings and grants, as my team will likely generate patentable IP."
Research time allocation: For roles with a research component (Research Scientist, Applied Scientist, or any role where publishing or experimentation is part of the job description), negotiate protected research time explicitly: "I'd like to discuss research time allocation. For roles with a research component, I've found that 20% protected time for papers, experiments, and exploratory work -- not subject to sprint commitments -- is the minimum to produce meaningful research output. Can we formalize that expectation?" If the company is hesitant, frame research time as a retention and recruiting tool: "Protected research time is table stakes for hiring and retaining top ML talent. Without it, the role is applied ML, not research, and should be scoped and titled accordingly."
Compute budget as compensation: For research-oriented roles, access to GPU clusters (internal or cloud) has real dollar value and should be factored into the total comp evaluation. A $50K/year dedicated compute budget is functionally equivalent to $50K in additional comp for a researcher, because it directly enables the work that drives career advancement (publications, model development, experimentation velocity). When evaluating an offer: "This role includes a dedicated compute allocation of $[X]/year -- factor that into your total comp comparison. A $250K base + $50K compute budget at Company A may be more valuable for your career than a $280K base with shared, constrained GPU access at Company B." When negotiating: "I'd like to discuss the compute resources allocated to this role. A dedicated annual compute budget of $[X] -- whether through internal cluster allocation or cloud credits -- would ensure I can deliver on the research and model development goals. Can we formalize a compute allocation?"
Watch for: companies offering DS comp for MLE work. If the role involves production systems and deployment, it's MLE and should be compensated accordingly. Also watch for: "Research Scientist" titles with no actual research time or publication support -- this is a comp arbitrage where companies use a prestigious title to attract talent without providing the resources that make the title meaningful. If the role is called Research Scientist but has no protected research time, no compute budget, and no publication support, it is an Applied Scientist or MLE role and should be evaluated against those comp bands instead.

# Offer Analysis - [Company] [Role] [Level]
Date: [date]
Decision deadline: [date if known]

## The Offer
| Component | Amount | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| Base | $[X] | |
| Equity | $[X] over [Y] years | [type: RSU/ISO/NSO], [vesting schedule] |
| Bonus | [X]% target ($[Y]) | [guaranteed Y1 or not] |
| Sign-on | $[X] | [clawback terms if any] |
| Other | [list] | [relocation, benefits, etc.] |

**Total Year 1:** $[X]
**Total Annual (steady state):** $[X]
**Total 4-Year:** $[X]

## Market Comparison
| Source | Range | Your Offer | Percentile |
|--------|-------|------------|------------|
| levels.fyi [level] | $[X]-$[Y] | $[Z] | P[N] |
| Glassdoor [role] | $[X]-$[Y] | $[Z] | P[N] |
| Blind data points | [list recent] | — | — |
| Company-intel | [if available] | — | — |

**Assessment:** [Above market / At market / Below market] — [1 sentence justification with data]

## Your Targets (from career-plan.md)
- Dream offer target: $[X]
- Walkaway number: $[X]
- This offer vs target: [+/- $X] ([above/below] by [X]%)
- This offer vs walkaway: [+/- $X] ([above/below] by [X]%)

## Pay-Cut Analysis
[Only if current comp exceeds offer or target range]
- **Current total comp:** $[X]
- **This offer:** $[Y]
- **Delta:** -$[Z] ([X]% reduction)
- **Your stated walkaway:** $[W]
- **Is this deliberate?** [Confirm user is making a conscious trade-off, not capitulating]
- **What you are gaining:** [role quality, company trajectory, equity upside, career positioning, mission alignment -- must be specific]
- **Comp trajectory:** [At this company/level, what does Year 2-3 comp look like with refreshers/promotions? A short-term cut that leads to faster growth may be rational.]
- **Negotiation posture:** Do NOT anchor to current comp. Negotiate within the band for this level. Target top-of-band positioning: $[X].

## Leverage Points
1. **[Leverage type]:** [specific data-backed point]
   Strength: [strong / moderate / weak]
2. **[Leverage type]:** [specific data-backed point]
   Strength: [strong / moderate / weak]
3. **[Leverage type]:** [specific data-backed point]
   Strength: [strong / moderate / weak]

**Overall leverage assessment:** [strong / moderate / limited]

## Counter-Offer Strategy
| Component | Current | Ask | Target | Walkaway |
|-----------|---------|-----|--------|----------|
| Base | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] |
| Equity | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] |
| Sign-on | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] |
| Total Y1 | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] |

**Priority order:** [which component to push on first, second, third]
**Fallback pivots:** [if base is firm → push equity; if equity is firm → push sign-on; etc.]

## Draft Counter Language

### Option A: Email
---
Subject: [Company] - Offer Discussion

Hi [Recruiter Name],

[2-3 sentences of genuine enthusiasm about the role, referencing specific
conversations or aspects of the opportunity. NOT generic.]

I've reviewed the offer carefully and I'd love to make this work. After
looking at market data for [level] PMs at [company] and factoring in
[specific leverage point], I'd like to discuss a few components:

- **Base:** I'm targeting $[X], which aligns with [data source] for
  [level] in [location]. [1 sentence justification.]
- **Equity:** [If relevant: "Given [reason], I'd like to discuss a grant
  of $[X]."]
- **Sign-on:** [If relevant: "A sign-on of $[X] would help bridge [gap]."]

I'm confident we can find a package that reflects the value I'll bring to
[specific project/team]. Happy to discuss on a call whenever works for you.

Best,
[Your Name]
---

### Option B: Verbal (Call Talking Points)
1. **Open with enthusiasm:** "[Specific thing you're excited about]. I've
   really enjoyed the process and I'm excited about [specific project/team]."
2. **Transition:** "I've done my research on the compensation side and I'd
   love to talk through a few things."
3. **The ask:** "For base, I was hoping to land at $[X]. Looking at
   levels.fyi data for [level] and my [specific experience], that feels
   like the right range."
4. **Then stop talking.** Let them respond. Do not fill the silence.
5. **If they push back on base:** "I understand base bands can be tight.
   Could we explore [equity / sign-on / level adjustment] to close the gap?"
6. **If they say final offer:** "I appreciate that. Can I ask -- is there
   any flexibility on [component], or is the entire package final?" (Tests
   whether it's truly final.)
7. **If truly final and below walkaway:** "I really appreciate the offer
   and the time everyone has invested. I need to think about whether the
   total package works for my situation. Can I have until [date]?"

## Prep for the Call
- **Your BATNA:** [Best alternative -- other offer at $X from Company Y,
  or late-stage process at Company Z, or current role if staying is viable]
- **Their likely BATNA:** [They have other candidates, but if hiring
  velocity is high, backfilling takes time]
- **Tone:** Enthusiastic and collaborative, never adversarial. You are
  solving a problem together, not fighting over money.
- **Key data points to have ready:** [2-3 specific numbers from market
  research to cite if challenged]
- **Red flags during the call:** [If recruiter becomes hostile, if they
  rescind the offer, if they pressure you to decide on the spot]

### Background Check Timing

If the user has background check concerns (check career-plan.md):
- Clarify when the background check occurs: pre-offer, post-conditional-offer, or post-start.
- Help the user ask naturally: "Can you walk me through the onboarding timeline, including any background check?" — this is standard and does not raise flags.
- If post-conditional-offer: the offer may be rescinded based on results. Prepare a proactive disclosure script: "I want to be transparent about something that will appear in the background check: [brief factual statement]. Here's the context: [1-2 sentences]. It has no bearing on my ability to perform this role."
- If the user is in a ban-the-box jurisdiction, the company legally cannot ask before a conditional offer.
- *This is strategic career coaching, not legal advice. Consult an attorney specializing in employment law in your jurisdiction.*

## Decision Framework
- [ ] Does total comp meet your walkaway number? [yes/no]
- [ ] Does the role match your career plan priorities? [yes/no]
- [ ] Are there dealbreaker non-comp factors? [list any from career-plan.md "what would make you say no"]
- [ ] Is this better than your BATNA? [yes/no]
- [ ] After negotiation, will you feel good about the outcome? [gut check]

Every ask backed by data. Never recommend a counter-offer number without a data source. "I think you should ask for more" is useless. "$195K aligns with P50 for L5 PMs at Google per levels.fyi (N=847 data points)" is useful.
Always lead with enthusiasm. Check both email and verbal drafts. The first thing out of the user's mouth or email must be genuine excitement about the role. Never lead with the ask. Never make it adversarial.
Walkaway number included. Always reference the walkaway from career-plan.md. The user must know their floor before entering negotiation. If career-plan.md does not have a walkaway number, prompt: "Your career plan doesn't specify a walkaway number. Before negotiating, decide: what's the minimum total comp you'd accept? Set this BEFORE the call, not during."
Competing offers referenced. Always check app-tracker for other offers or active processes. These are the strongest leverage and must be incorporated. If no competing offers exist, note: "You have limited leverage without competing offers. Consider accelerating other processes before countering."
Equity risk acknowledged. For pre-IPO companies, always note that equity value is uncertain. Do not treat paper equity as equivalent to cash RSUs at public companies. Apply a reasonable discount and explain why.
Silence technique. The verbal script must include an explicit instruction to stop talking after the ask. This is the most common negotiation mistake -- filling silence with concessions.
Fallback chain. Always include a priority-ordered fallback chain. If the user can get nothing on base, they need to know immediately where to pivot. Do not let the user enter a call without knowing their next move if the first ask is rejected.
Non-comp factors. Check career-plan.md for "what would make you say no" and flag any non-comp dealbreakers in the decision framework. Comp negotiation is irrelevant if the role itself is wrong.
Timeline awareness. If the user has a deadline, build urgency into the strategy. If they do not have a deadline but have competing processes, suggest creating one strategically.
Pay-cut scenario handling. If the user's current comp exceeds the offer or the target range, the skill MUST detect this and switch to pay-cut negotiation mode. Never blindly tell a user to "ask for more to match current comp" when they are deliberately taking a cut for the right opportunity. Instead, help them negotiate to the top of the band while protecting against unnecessary concessions. Flag the pay cut explicitly so the user makes a conscious, informed decision.
Current comp concealment. In pay-cut scenarios, the counter language (both email and verbal) must NEVER reveal the user's current comp unless the user explicitly wants to. Revealing a higher current comp in a pay-cut scenario can signal flight risk or create awkwardness. Coach the user to redirect comp questions to market data for the target role.
Cross-market comp concealment (non-US to US). If the user's current comp is in a non-US market that pays significantly less than US rates (EUR, JPY, etc.), the negotiation strategy must treat current comp as CONFIDENTIAL. The counter language must never state or imply the current figure. If the user already disclosed their non-US comp during the process (check interview-history.md), generate a "Comp Anchor Recovery" section specifically addressing the cross-market disclosure: "You disclosed a non-US comp figure that sounds low in US context. Reframe: 'That figure reflects the [European/Japanese] market, which has a fundamentally different comp structure. For this role in [US city], I'm targeting the market rate of $[X]-$[Y] based on levels.fyi data.'" The verbal script must include this redirect practiced to fluency.
International relocation in counter-offer. If the user is relocating internationally (check career-plan.md for relocation indicators), the counter-offer must include relocation as an explicit negotiation point. Add a row to the Counter-Offer Strategy table for "Relocation" with estimated international move costs ($20K-$40K), assessment of whether the offer's relocation package covers actual costs, and a draft ask: "International relocation from [country] typically runs $[X]. Could we discuss increasing the relocation package to cover actual costs, or adding a sign-on to bridge the gap?"
Visa-aware negotiation posture. If the user needs visa sponsorship, the negotiation section must include visa-specific guidance: (a) Do NOT use visa as a reason to accept below-market offers -- companies that sponsor have comp bands that apply equally to all candidates. (b) If the user has limited competing offers due to visa constraints, acknowledge this honestly but do not telegraph it: "Frame enthusiasm for the role as genuine interest, not lack of alternatives." (c) If an L-1 transfer path is available (from target-companies.md), note it as potential negotiation leverage: "You could potentially start at [company's European office] on L-1, which removes lottery risk and may increase the company's willingness to invest in the offer."
Founder comp framing (failed founder / shut-down company). If career-plan.md shows founder/CEO/co-founder experience at a company that shut down, failed, or was acqui-hired at low value, apply these adjustments to the negotiation strategy:
- Do NOT use the founder's previous salary as an anchor. Founders at failed startups often paid themselves well below market (bootstrapped/early-stage) or above market (funded startup with inflated CEO comp). Neither is relevant. The anchor is the market rate for the TARGET role. If the recruiter asks about previous comp, the response is: "My founder comp reflected the economics of an early-stage startup, not the market rate for a [level] PM. Based on levels.fyi, the range for this role is $[X]-$[Y]." Practice this redirect until it is automatic.
- Counter with market rate language, not founder history. The counter-offer email and verbal scripts must frame the ask in terms of the role's market data, not the founder's comp history. Do NOT write: "As a former CEO, I was earning $X." DO write: "Based on market data for [level] at [company], I'm targeting $[X], which aligns with P[N] on levels.fyi."
- If the recruiter anchors to the low founder salary: Recovery script: "That figure reflected the reality of an early-stage startup where I chose to invest in the team rather than my own comp. For this role, I'm focused on what's competitive in the market. My research shows $[X]-$[Y] for [level] at [company]."
- If the recruiter anchors to a high funded-startup CEO salary: Recovery script: "My comp at [startup] included a CEO-level package at a funded company, which isn't directly comparable to a [level] PM role. I'm targeting the market rate for this role: $[X]-$[Y] based on levels.fyi data."
- Equity negotiation for founders: Former founders understand equity deeply. Use this as leverage: ask informed questions about vesting schedule, refresh grants, acceleration on change of control, and exercise windows. This signals sophistication without arrogance. Include in the verbal script: "Having built a company, I think a lot about equity structure. Could you walk me through the refresh grant cadence and what happens to unvested shares in an acquisition?"
Industry-anomaly comp concealment. If career-plan.md shows a structurally below-market employer (Epic Systems, government, academia, non-profit, pre-revenue startup), verify that: (a) all counter-offer language and verbal scripts anchor exclusively to market data, never to current comp, (b) salary history ban laws are cited when the target role is in a ban jurisdiction (CA, NY, CO, WA, etc.), (c) deflection scripts are included in the call prep, (d) the equity education primer is included if transitioning from a no-equity employer, (e) the over-gratitude tone check passes (no "generous offer" language despite the comp jump).
Military-to-Civilian Comp Translation. If career-plan.md shows military background (active duty, veteran, reserves, or military titles like Captain, Major, Lieutenant, Colonel, etc.), apply these negotiation adjustments: (a) Do NOT anchor to military base pay. Military candidates often undersell themselves by anchoring to their base pay (e.g., O-3 ~$65K) when their true total comp including BAH, BAS, TRICARE, and TSP is $90-110K+. The counter should be framed around market value for the role, not military pay: "My total military compensation was approximately $[calculated total]. For this civilian role, I'm targeting $[market rate] based on [X] years of leadership and analytical experience." (b) Clearance as leverage: for defense tech roles, the clearance itself has market value ($50K-$150K to sponsor, 6-12 month timeline). Use this in negotiation: "My active TS/SCI eliminates the 6-12 month clearance timeline and associated costs for your organization." This is a concrete, quantifiable value proposition that justifies top-of-band positioning. (c) For general tech roles: do NOT lead with clearance value unless the company does government work. Instead, focus on years of leadership experience and transferable skills as the comp justification.

Negotiate

/negotiate - Offer Analysis & Counter-Offer Strategy

When to Use

Role Type Detection

Negotiate

/negotiate - Offer Analysis & Counter-Offer Strategy

When to Use

Role Type Detection

Inputs

Process

Step 1: Parse the Offer

Step 1b: Comp Data Staleness Check

Step 2: Market Research

Step 3: Compare Against Your Targets

Step 4: Identify Leverage Points

Regional Negotiation Norms

Step 5: Build Counter-Offer Strategy

Step 6: Draft Counter Language

Step 7: Call Prep with BATNA

Output

Example

Quality Checks

Llm Trading Agent Security

Energy Procurement

Council

Carrier Relationship Management

Market Research

Market Research