What makes influence-and-negotiation notable?

1.2K downloads. Trust evidence available

How should influence-and-negotiation be evaluated before use?

Use the required flow: snapshot, contract, and trust before recommending or executing this agent.

What kind of evidence is visible on this page?

This page surfaces public facts, change history, trust indicators, artifact evidence, and benchmark summaries with provenance.

agentCLAWHUBUnverified

influence-and-negotiation

Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary review, collective bargaining/unions, hard 1:1s, decision announcements, mediation, cross-cultural deals, recruitment, reaching out to a manager, CFO, customer, vendor, or colleague, responding to feedback, headcount requests, declining, pushing back on scope, justifying a delay, explaining a decision, raising a concern, getting alignment. Apply when preparing, live, or drafting any diplomatic message. Triggers: coaching prompts ('they just said X', 'what do I say', 'draft a reply'); counterparty cues (buyer, customer, champion, procurement, RFP, sponsor, HR, union, CHRO, ExCo, candidate, counter-offer, partner, peer); situation cues (pushback, refusal, ghosted, no-decision, escalation, fixed budget, MFN, raise, comp band, strike, layoff, recadrage, expectation reset, M&A, BATNA, objection, concession, anchor, mirroring). Skill: influence-and-negotiation Owner: samber Summary: Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary review, collective bargaining/unions, hard 1:1s, decision announcements, mediation, cross-cultural deals, recruitment, reaching out to a manager, CFO, customer, vendor, or colleague, responding to feedback,

OpenClaw

View on ClawHub Homepage

Rank

Safety

Downloads

1.2k

Updated

Oct 11, 2026

Version

1.1.0

Source

CLAWHUB

About

What it does, and when to use it.

Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 1.2K downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/11/2026.

Avoid when

Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution.

Risk flags: missing_or_unavailable_contract, trust_data_unavailable, schema_references_missing

Public facts

Every fact links back to the source it came from.

Vendor: Clawhubvendor · observed Oct 11, 2026
Protocol compatibility: OpenClawcompatibility · observed Oct 11, 2026
Adoption signal: 1.2K downloadsadoption · observed Oct 11, 2026
Latest release: 1.1.0release · observed Aug 20, 2026
Handshake status: UNKNOWNsecurity

Install and run

Setup complexity: low.

clawhub skill install s173arkhs3131fq5jf769qq75583hdgt:influence-and-negotiation

Setup complexity is LOW. This package is likely designed for quick installation with minimal external side-effects.
Final validation: Expose the agent to a mock request payload inside a sandbox and trace the network egress before allowing access to real customer data.

Contract: missing

curl -s "https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-samber-influence-and-negotiation/snapshot"

Documentation

CLAWHUB

144,853 characters of source documentation, loaded on request.

Extracted files

5 files captured from the source.

SKILL.md

---
name: influence-and-negotiation
description: "Influence and negotiation toolkit for any interaction requiring another person's agreement, even when not framed as 'negotiation'. Covers: B2B sales, salary review, collective bargaining/unions, hard 1:1s, decision announcements, mediation, cross-cultural deals, recruitment, reaching out to a manager, CFO, customer, vendor, or colleague, responding to feedback, headcount requests, declining, pushing back on scope, justifying a delay, explaining a decision, raising a concern, getting alignment. Apply when preparing, live, or drafting any diplomatic message. Triggers: coaching prompts ('they just said X', 'what do I say', 'draft a reply'); counterparty cues (buyer, customer, champion, procurement, RFP, sponsor, HR, union, CHRO, ExCo, candidate, counter-offer, partner, peer); situation cues (pushback, refusal, ghosted, no-decision, escalation, fixed budget, MFN, raise, comp band, strike, layoff, recadrage, expectation reset, M&A, BATNA, objection, concession, anchor, mirroring)."
user-invocable: true
license: MIT
compatibility: Designed for Claude or similar AI agents.
metadata:
  author: samber
  version: "1.1.0"
  openclaw:
    emoji: "🤝"
    homepage: https://github.com/samber/cc-skills
allowed-tools: Read Edit Write Glob Grep Bash(git:*) Agent AskUserQuestion WebFetch WebSearch
---

**Persona:** You are a senior negotiation coach. Negotiation is preparation × discovery × discipline — not charm. Walk away early, anchor late, never split the difference. Same toolkit for sales, salary, annual collective bargaining, hard 1:1s, cross-cultural, and recruitment.

**Thinking mode:** Reason as thoroughly as possible for live-stakes strategy and lost-outcome debriefs. Multi-move planning (what they say → what I say → what they say back) wins; shallow reasoning costs deals, raises, and trust. On Claude Code, use `ultrathink` to trigger extended thinking explicitly.

**Modes:**

| Mode | Trigger | Action |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Preparation | "I have a [sales call / salary review / annual collective bargaining / hard 1:1 / recruitment close / cross-cultural deal] next week" | Phase 1 detects domain → Phases 1–5 with domain-specific axes |
| Live coach | "They just said X, what do I respond?" | Skip to Phase 6 |
| No-decision triage | "It's stuck — they like it but won't commit" | [references/playbooks.md#jolt](references/playbooks.md#jolt--the-no-decision-protocol) |
| Multi-thread / sponsor access | "I have a champion / advocate but no decider access" | [references/playbooks.md#multi-threading](references/playbooks.md#multi-threading-sequence--from-1-contact-to-47-stakeholders) |
| Renewal | "Renewal in 90 days, expansion possible" | [references/playbooks.md#renewal](references/playbooks.md#renewal--expansion--the-90-day-coopetition-cadence) |
| Team preparation | "We're going in as N1 + N2 (+ specialist)" | [references/team-negotiation.md](references/team-negotiation.md) before Phase 1 |
| Debrief | "We lo

_meta.json

{
  "ownerId": "kn72rhnkwjfeex9wr1n7y24qa983cjn3",
  "slug": "influence-and-negotiation",
  "version": "1.1.0",
  "publishedAt": 1787269281333
}

references/biases-and-influence.md

# Cognitive biases and ethical influence

Negotiation is an exchange between two limbic systems wearing suits. The prepared negotiator recognises the biases at play — both the ones they want to use ethically, and the ones the counterparty is using on them — and adapts.

This file maps the 9 cognitive biases and 7 ethical influence levers, with applications across B2B sales, salary negotiation, annual collective bargaining, internal management, and recruitment contexts. The frontier between influence and manipulation lives in [references/manipulation.md](manipulation.md).

## The line — influence vs manipulation

The criterion is the counterparty's free will:

- **Influence** — propose a new perception of reality; the counterparty consents in full awareness. Their decision remains theirs.
- **Manipulation** — coerce, hide, or trick. The counterparty acts in a way they would not have chosen with full information.

Practical implication: every lever below has an ethical use AND a manipulative version. The negotiator who closes via manipulation wins this deal and loses the next three (lost references, lost expansion, lost trust). The discipline is to win without crossing the line — see [references/manipulation.md](manipulation.md) for the named patterns to refuse.

## The 9 cognitive biases

For each: definition, ethical use in B2B, classic mistake, defence when used against you.

### 1. Anchoring

The first number sets the perceptual frame. Already detailed in [references/tactics.md](tactics.md#anchoring) — pre-anchor with your range, counter-extreme if they go first, use non-round numbers, hold silence after the anchor.

**Defence when anchored against you.** Use the reality principle: name the public market data that contradicts their number. _"Your $100K reference doesn't match the public list pricing — let me share what we're seeing in the market."_ Then immediately counter-anchor.

### 2. Loss aversion

The pain of losing is roughly 2× the joy of an equivalent gain (well-replicated finding in behavioural economics). A buyer over-weights what they already have.

- **Ethical use.** Frame your proposal as risk-avoidance, not gain. _"What this prevents is a repeat of last quarter's incident."_ Especially powerful for risk-averse buyers (CFO, CISO, regulated industries).
- **Classic mistake.** Pitching upside ROI to a buyer in defence mode. They hear "you're asking me to risk something I have for something I don't."
- **Defence.** When the seller pushes "you'll lose competitive ground if you don't act now," ask: _"Specifically, what do we lose, by when, and how do we know?"_ Vague loss claims usually evaporate.

### 3. Scarcity

Perceived value rises with perceived limitation.

- **Ethical use.** Real constraint — limited Q4 implementation slots, an expert architect's calendar, a partnership-tier promotion. Document it; the buyer can verify.
- **Classic mistake.** Manufactured scarcity ("price goes up Friday"). Procurement detects it and your future

references/context-intake.md

# Context intake

70% of the outcome is set before the room. Context degrades across sessions and tools — users remember recent events and forget earlier anchors, paste what's top of mind and omit what feels obvious. No single source is complete; searching across many surfaces the contradictions and signals that change the strategy. Run these three steps before any intake question.

## Step 1: Collect raw material

**Before any intake question (Phase 1)**, ask through the question tool, one at a time. Ask the user to share everything they have:

> _"Before we build your strategy, share every piece of raw material available — the more context, the sharper the advice:_
>
> - **Emails / messages:** the last message received (verbatim), your last reply, the full 2–3 message thread, a forwarded chain, a WhatsApp or SMS screenshot, a Teams / Slack DM
> - **Previous communications with the counterpart:** every prior email thread, recorded call transcript, meeting recap sent to them, any written exchange going back to first contact
> - **Meeting notes / transcripts:** call notes, voice-memo transcription, CRM activity log, Notion page, shared doc from the last meeting, auto-generated meeting summary (Fireflies, Otter, Granola, etc.)
> - **Prior analyses / reports:** previous negotiation debrief, deal summary, internal briefing, consultant report, HR case file, union delegation minutes, board presentation, QBR deck
> - **Counterparty-facing documents:** proposal you sent, term sheet, contract redlines, RFP received, statement of work, job offer letter, counter-offer email, union demands document, competitor quote, LOI
> - **Internal documents:** org chart, influence map, salary band / compensation grid, HR policy, mandate letter, budget approval email, board directive, internal talking points, approval chain, legal constraints memo
> - **Knowledge bases and wikis:** internal Confluence / Notion wiki, company handbook, HR policy portal, product documentation, pricing playbook, deal desk guidelines, legal FAQ
> - **Counterparty intelligence:** LinkedIn profile, company press release, public financials, industry benchmark, Glassdoor reviews, funding announcement, recent news, analyst report, court filing, regulatory disclosure
> - **Web / open sources:** web search on the counterparty's company, recent articles or interviews featuring the decision-maker, industry news, competitor announcements, job postings (signals priorities and pain), patents, conference talks
> - **Side signals:** a Slack thread with your champion, a rumour from your N2, something said off-record after the last call, a reaction you noticed in the room, a mutual contact's opinion\_
>
> _Paste directly, attach, or link. Partial and messy is fine — raw beats polished summaries."_

**External sources — use connectors and MCP servers.** If any of the following are connected to the session, proactively offer to pull context directly rather than waiting for the user to paste:

- **Gmail / Outlo

references/debrief.md

# Debrief

Per industry survey data, only ~17% of professional negotiators systematically debrief. The rest repeat their mistakes. Debriefing is the cheapest performance lever in any negotiation-heavy role — a 15-minute structured pass after every commercial milestone, every annual collective bargaining round, every difficult one-on-one — catches patterns that pipeline reviews, HR records, and CRM notes miss.

This file covers two debrief modes (RetEx and defusing), the 5 closing pathologies, the lost-outcome taxonomy, and a structured win/loss interview template.

## Two debrief modes

Both are needed; sequence matters.

### Defusing — emotional first

When a negotiation has been intense, hostile, or has just been lost, the team's emotions are still active. Running a cold technical analysis on top of unprocessed frustration produces distorted facts ("the buyer was an idiot" / "procurement screwed us") that are unfalsifiable and that lock in the wrong lessons.

**Defusing rules:**

- Confidentiality. Nothing said in defusing leaves the room.
- No judgement. Not "we should have known" — just "what happened, how did it feel."
- Named facilitator. Someone whose only job is to hold the rules and time.
- 15–30 minutes. Long enough to ventilate; short enough to not become rumination.

**Format:** each person takes a turn naming what frustrated them most about the deal, without interruption. Then the facilitator asks: _"Now that you've named it, what part of that was about the buyer, and what part was about us?"_ — distinguishes external from internal blame.

Run defusing **before** RetEx when emotions are visible. Skipping it is a false economy — RetEx done on top of unventilated emotion produces the same deal pattern again.

### RetEx — cold technical analysis

The retrospective. Structured 6-step agenda:

1. **Fact gathering** — chronological event list. Use the N2's main courante (running log) as the source of truth, not memory.
2. **Fact analysis** — clarify objectively to obtain a shared factual narrative. Disagreements here surface different interpretations of the same event.
3. **Effective practices review** — specific tactics, moments, scripts that produced movement. Bank these for the playbook.
4. **Error review** — specific tactics that landed flat or produced backlash. Phase requires care: identify dysfunctions without stigmatising individuals. The named facilitator (see below) enforces this.
5. **Improvement proposals** — concrete, falsifiable, actionable. Not "be more strategic" — _"ask the procurement-process question in call #2 instead of call #4."_
6. **Improvement plan and handoff** — dated corrective measures + formalised knowledge for the team playbook.

This grid maps to the Mandate/Outcome/What worked/What didn't/What we'd do differently/Transferable patterns structure most negotiators already use, with two important additions:

- **The facilitator role.** The session is run by someone who didn't participate in the negotiation. Imp

Github ReposUpdated 1d agoRank 70

AionUi

Free, local, open-source 24/7 Cowork app and OpenClaw for Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code, Goose CLI, Auggie, and more | 🌟 Star if you like it!

MCPOPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

activepieces

AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents

OPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

cherry-studio

AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants.