executing-plans
executing-plans
Use when executing an implementation plan in the current session as the implementer yourself — your human partner chose inline execution, or no subagent tool is available
conflict-resolutionFacilitates workplace and interpersonal conflict resolution using Nonviolent Communication and interest-based negotiation, producing a mediation plan, de-escalation scripts, and a written agreement with a check-in date. Use when someone asks "how do I resolve a conflict with my coworker", "two of my reports are fighting", "help me have a hard conversation",…
Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs
Most conflicts stall because people negotiate positions ("I want X") instead of interests ("I want X because I need Y"). Positions collide; interests usually overlap. The costly mistake this skill prevents is splitting the difference on positions - a compromise that leaves both parties resentful - when a solution meeting both underlying interests was available the whole time.
Order matters: understanding must come before solutions, because solutions imposed on people who do not yet feel heard get rejected regardless of merit.
Collect before advising. Label anything inferred as a guess.
For each stated position, ask "why is that important to you?" and "what would that get you?" until the answer is a need (clarity, respect, autonomy, predictability, recognition), not a demand. Two people fighting over a conference room (positions) often need quiet focus and a place to take calls (interests) - two different rooms solve it. Do not move on until each side's interest is written in one sentence that side would endorse.
Coach the initiating party to speak in four parts, without evaluation:
Observation: "When <specific, factual event>..." (facts a camera would capture)
Feeling: "...I felt <emotion>..."
Need: "...because I need <clarity / respect / support>..."
Request: "...Would you be willing to <specific, doable action>?"
A request is not a demand - the other person may say no, which opens negotiation rather than ending it.
Bad: "You're unreliable and you clearly don't respect the team's time. You need to start showing up."
Good: "When the last two Monday standups started without you, I felt frustrated, because I need to be able to plan the sprint with the whole picture. Would you be willing to message the channel by 9:00 if you're going to miss it?"
The bad version generalizes ("unreliable"), mind-reads ("don't respect"), and issues a demand - it triggers defense. The good version cites two checkable facts, owns the feeling, names the need, and makes one small, refusable request.
Produce a mediation package containing: each party's position and underlying interest in one sentence each, an NVC-framed opening statement for the initiating party, ground rules, a shortlist of options mapped to the interests they satisfy, the chosen agreement with owners and dates, and a check-in date within 2 weeks.
Safety, harassment, discrimination, or ethics issues go to HR or leadership immediately - do not mediate them. After two genuine good-faith sessions with no movement, bring in a neutral third party rather than repeating the same conversation. For a team's standing conflict norms, pair with team-charter; for angry customers, use refund-deescalation.