Agent Skills
› mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
› saying-no-kindly
saying-no-kindly
GitHub提供礼貌拒绝请求的脚本与策略，涵盖同侪、下属及上级场景。通过“快速-清晰-温暖”公式及替代方案菜单，将拒绝转化为优先级权衡，帮助用户在保护关系的同时避免过度承诺。
触发场景
如何委婉地说不
礼貌地拒绝项目
总是答应别人导致精力耗尽
如何向经理推脱不合理要求
安装
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill saying-no-kindly -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "saying-no-kindly",
"description": "Decline requests without damaging relationships or your standing — the fast-clear-warm formula, the alternative-attached no, the no-to-the-boss version (tradeoffs, not refusal), and the scripts for the asks that recur. Use when asked how do I say no to this, decline this project politely, I say yes to everything and drown, or push back on my manager's request. Produces the decline scripts by relationship, the tradeoff framing for upward nos, the alternative menu, and the yes-audit that finds what to stop."
}
Saying No Kindly Skill
Chronic yes is a scheduling decision made by fear — each yes reasonable, the sum unworkable, and the real casualties are the commitments already made (every new yes quietly taxes them). The working no is fast (a slow no wastes the asker's planning time and reads worse than the decline itself), clear (soft-nos — "maybe later," "let me think" — are heard as yes-pending and return with interest), and warm (the relationship is preserved by tone and alternatives, not by capitulation). Upward, the form changes entirely: nos to the boss are tradeoff conversations — "yes is available; here's what it displaces; you pick."
What This Skill Produces
- The scripts — the decline by relationship (peer, report, boss, external), each fast-clear-warm
- The alternative menu — the smaller yes, the later yes, the redirect, the resource — attached where honest
- The upward version — the tradeoff frame that converts refusal into prioritization the boss owns
- The yes-audit — the current commitments reviewed for the over-capacity that made no necessary (task-triage-matrix supplies the evidence)
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- The ask and the asker — what's requested, by whom, with what relationship and power direction; the script's form follows
- The real reason — capacity? Wrong person? Wrong project? The no's honesty level calibrates (capacity-nos can say so; judgment-nos need more care)
- What's honestly offerable — the smaller/later/redirect alternatives that exist; alternatives invented to soften become new commitments, which is the disease again
- The pattern, if any — recurring asks from the same source get the structural answer (the norm conversation), not the fifteenth artisanal decline
Framework: The Decline Rules
- Fast beats polished: the no within a day — "I can't take this on" today outperforms the perfect decline on Thursday, because the asker's alternative plans age by the hour. Sitting on asks to avoid the discomfort transfers the cost to them, with interest.
- Clear kills the zombie: "I'm not able to do this" — complete sentence, no "right now" unless later is a real offer, no "maybe" as anesthesia. Soft-nos return; every returned ask costs the decline and the resentment of having to repeat it.
- Warm is tone plus (honest) alternatives: "I can't own this — but [name] has the context, or I could do the 30-minute review version" — the alternative converts a door closing into a door pointing. The discipline: only alternatives that are true (a fake redirect burns the third party; an unaffordable smaller-yes is the original problem in a smaller size).
- Upward nos are tradeoff menus: never "no," always "here's the board: taking X means Y slips to [date] or Z drops — which trade do you want?" — the boss keeps the priority call (their job), the capacity truth lands (your job), and the meeting-prep-pack-grade specificity ("X costs the two Thursday blocks that ship the launch") is what separates this from whining. Most bosses pick sanely when shown the board; the ones who say "all of it" have now chosen the overload — on the record, revisitable.
- The audit ends the era: the standing commitments get the same treatment as new asks — which current yeses would be nos today? (recurring-meeting-pruner for meetings; the drop-list ceremony for tasks) — because saying no at the door of a full house is maintenance, and the audit is the renovation.
Output Format
The No: [ask] from [asker/relationship]
The Script
[The decline, verbatim: fast-clear-warm · the alternative if honest · the full-stop where none is]
If Upward: The Tradeoff Board
["Yes to X displaces: [specific costs with dates] — which trade?" · the on-the-record note if overridden]
The Pattern Answer (if recurring)
[The structural fix: the norm, the routing, the office-hours lane — instead of decline #15]
The Yes-Audit
[Current commitments that would be nos today → their exit moves]
Quality Checks
- The no ships within a day of the ask
- No soft-no language survives unless later is a real offer
- Every attached alternative is honestly affordable or honestly routed
- Upward nos present specific tradeoffs, never bare refusal
- Recurring asks got the structural answer
Anti-Patterns
- Do not slow-no — the delay is a cost you're charging the asker to spare yourself
- Do not soften into zombie-maybes — they return, with interest and a grudge
- Do not invent alternatives as anesthetic — fake redirects and unaffordable smaller-yeses are new debts
- Do not say bare no upward — the tradeoff board is both more honest and more survivable
- Do not decline the new while hoarding the old — the audit is where capacity actually returns
版本历史
- 471c606 当前 2026-07-22 15:09
