--- name: rejection-sensitivity-check category: exec-function codex-short-description: "Calibrate a message that stung: separate evidence from interpretation" description: > Calibrate a message that stung — separate evidence from interpretation, score how much sting is warranted. Use when the user says "did they mean it that way", "is this criticism", "am I reading this wrong", "this stung", or invokes /rejection-sensitivity- check. version: 1.0.0 license: MIT compatibility: claude-code codex opencode allowed-tools: - Read - AskUserQuestion - Skill related-skills: - clarity-council loop-eligible: false --- # Rejection Sensitivity Check A message landed harder than expected. The user wants to know: is this actually critical, or am I reading hostility into something neutral? This skill separates the **evidence in the text** from the **interpretation the brain layered on top**. Sibling to [break-it-down](../break-it-down/SKILL.md). Break-it-down is general decoding; this one is specifically for messages that triggered a rejection-sensitive reaction. ## Lens: psychologist + devils-advocate This skill always invokes `clarity-council` via `Skill` in multi mode with personas `[psychologist, devils-advocate]`. The two-persona setup is the whole point — psychologist reads the text neutrally, devils-advocate stress-tests both the worst-case and the best-case reading. - **user_problem:** *"The user received this message and it stung. Separate what the text actually says from what the user's pattern-matching is adding. Calibrate whether the sting is warranted."* - **context:** the message + relationship + what the user is afraid it means + recent history with sender if shared. - **desired_outcome:** *"A side-by-side: evidence vs. interpretation. A calibrated read (1-5 scale). A worst-case and a best-case interpretation. A recommended response stance."* - **constraints:** `[do not invalidate the feeling, do not over-validate the worst-case reading, cite specific words from the message, name the cognitive distortion if one is operating]` - **depth:** `standard`. Never skip the council for this skill — the second perspective is the value. ## When to activate Activate when the user pastes a message that landed badly and asks if they're overreacting, misreading, or seeing things that aren't there. Ask: 1. **What did you read into it?** (Their interpretation, before yours.) 2. **What's the relationship?** (Recurring sender? Authority? Peer?) 3. **How are you feeling physically?** (RSD is often a body response — naming it helps.) ## Output format ### What the text actually says A neutral, evidence-only restatement. No reading-between-lines, just what's literally on the page. ### What your brain is adding The user's interpretation, restated back to them without judgment. Name it as interpretation, not fact. ### Evidence-vs-interpretation table | Their phrase | Neutral read | RSD read | Evidence weight | |--------------|--------------|----------|-----------------| | [phrase] | [neutral interpretation] | [worst-case interpretation] | Low / Medium / High | The evidence weight is how much the text *itself* supports the RSD reading — not how plausible it feels. ### Calibrated sting score **Warranted sting: [1-5]** - 1: Almost certainly neutral — the text contains no critical signal. - 2: Mostly neutral with one ambiguous phrase. - 3: Genuinely mixed — could go either way. - 4: Critical but proportionate to the situation. - 5: Critical and disproportionate or hostile. One-sentence rationale. ### Worst-case vs best-case reading **Worst-case:** [the most negative plausible interpretation] **Best-case:** [the most charitable plausible interpretation] **Most likely:** [where the evidence actually points] ### Recommended response stance - **If they meant the worst-case:** [response] - **If they meant the best-case:** [response] - **Safe middle response that works for both:** [response] ## What NOT to do - Do not say "you're overreacting" — this is the voice in their head already - Do not invalidate the feeling — RSD is real even when the reading is wrong - Do not over-validate the worst case to seem supportive - Do not assume the sender is neurotypical or has emotional fluency - Do not recommend a response that requires emotional labor the user can't afford right now > **Host portability:** tool names in this skill follow Claude Code conventions; on other hosts (Codex, opencode) map them by intent — see [PORTABILITY.md](../PORTABILITY.md). ## Self-Evolve Loop Journal: `~/.ink-and-agency/learnings/rejection-sensitivity-check.md` (workspace-local `.ink-and-agency/learnings/rejection-sensitivity-check.md` where the sandbox confines writes). Read it first, append what the run taught last — [SELF-EVOLVE.md](../SELF-EVOLVE.md).