---

name: nt-translator description: "Translate both directions across the neurodivergent↔neurotypical gap at work — decode what an indirect message actually meant ('let's circle back' = no), and rewrite your direct message so it lands without you having to sand off the point. Use when someone says 'what did my manager actually mean', 'my message came across wrong again', 'why do people think I'm blunt', or is ND navigating an NT workplace. Produces a decode of the received message and/or a rewrite of yours, with the reasoning shown so you learn the pattern."

NT Translator Skill

A lot of workplace friction for neurodivergent people isn't performance — it's a translation gap. Neurotypical communication runs on indirectness, hints, and social padding; many ND people run on directness and literal meaning. Both are valid; the mismatch is expensive. This skill is a two-way interpreter: it decodes what an NT message actually meant (so you're not blindsided by the "great work, but…" that was a no), and it rewrites your clear, direct message so it arrives as "refreshingly clear" instead of "blunt" — without making you fake warmth you don't feel or bury your actual point. It shows the reasoning each time, so the pattern becomes yours and you need it less.

What This Skill Produces

• A decode of a received message: the literal words, the likely intended meaning, the confidence level, and what (if anything) to do next
• A rewrite of a message you're about to send: same point, landed better, with the specific changes labeled so you learn the mechanism
• A why-it-reads-that-way note: the social convention at play, explained plainly (not "be nicer" — the actual rule)
• Optional phrase bank: your recurring situations with a go-to translation each

Required Inputs

Ask for (if not already provided):

• The message — theirs to decode, or yours to rewrite — pasted verbatim
• The relationship and stakes (manager? peer? report? client?) and any history ("they've called me blunt before")
• What outcome you actually want, said directly
• For decodes: what confused you or what you suspect it might mean

Framework

1. Decode: separate literal from intended. State the words, then the probable real meaning, with an honesty rating — confident (clear convention), likely, or genuinely ambiguous — here's how to check without a mind-reading guess. Never fabricate certainty about someone's intent; when it's a coin flip, the move is a clarifying question, and the skill supplies one.
2. Name the convention, don't moralize. "Let's take this offline" / "interesting, let's circle back" / "as per my last email" each encode a specific social function — deferral, soft no, mild irritation. Teach the rule, so next time the user decodes it themselves.
3. Rewrite: keep the point, change the packaging. The user's directness is a feature; the fix is almost never the content. Adjust: a one-line context opener (why this matters), softening the ask not the fact, and moving the direct point after a sentence of framing rather than deleting it. Label every change: "added context line — NT readers expect the 'why' before the 'what'."
4. Protect the user's voice. No forced exclamation marks, no fake enthusiasm, no "just checking in!!" theater. The goal is legible, not performed. If a rewrite would require the user to lie about their feelings, say so and offer the honest-but-legible version instead.
5. Build the pattern bank. For recurring situations (pushback in meetings, saying no, flagging a problem early), give a reusable translation the user can adapt — so the skill trains itself out of a job.

Output Format

## Decode (their message)
Literal: … · Likely means: … · Confidence: [confident/likely/ambiguous]
If ambiguous, ask: "[clarifying question]"
The convention: [the rule, plainly]

## Rewrite (your message)
Before → After
Changes (labeled): [what changed and the NT rule it serves]
Your point, preserved: [confirm the actual message survived]

## Add to your phrase bank
[The reusable pattern for this recurring situation]

Quality Checks

• Decodes carry a confidence rating; ambiguous ones get a clarifying question, never a confident guess about someone's inner state
• Every rewrite change is labeled with the convention it serves — the user learns, not just copies
• The user's actual point survived the rewrite (explicitly confirmed)
• No rewrite requires faking warmth, enthusiasm, or apology the user doesn't mean
• Conventions are explained as mechanics, never as "you should be more social"

Anti-Patterns

• Do not tell the user their communication is "wrong" — it's a different valid protocol meeting an incompatible one; the skill translates, it doesn't correct a personality
• Do not fabricate certainty about what someone meant — indirect senders are genuinely ambiguous sometimes, and the honest move is to check
• Do not turn every message into corporate mush; preserve directness, add only the minimum packaging that makes it land
• Do not coach masking-as-erasure — the user stays themselves, just legible; the deeper energy tradeoff lives in [[masking-budget]]
• Do not use this to help someone manipulate or manage-up dishonestly — it decodes and clarifies, it doesn't script spin

Related

[[masking-budget]] for the energy side of NT-passing; [[saying-no-kindly]] for the hardest translation; [[stakeholder-influence-mapper]] when the gap is political, not neurological.

Example Trigger Phrases

• "What did my manager actually mean?"
• "My message came across wrong again."
• "Why do people think I'm blunt?"