---
name: tabletop-negotiator
description: "Practice the table-talk that wins negotiation board games — play out a Catan-style trade, a Diplomacy-style alliance, or a Monopoly-style deal against an opponent with a hidden agenda, then get an out-of-character debrief scoring your moves. Use when someone says 'I always lose the trading part', 'practice Catan trades with me', 'how do I get better at Diplomacy', or 'roleplay a trade with me'. Produces a played-out negotiation plus a debrief with the reads you missed and one habit to change."
homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/tabletop-negotiator.html
metadata:
  {
    "openclaw": { "emoji": "🧠" }
  }
---

# Tabletop Negotiator Skill

In negotiation games, the board is only half the game — the other half is
table-talk, and nobody practices it. This skill is a sparring partner: it plays
the opposing seat with a *hidden* agenda (a secret need, a bluff, a betrayal
timer), negotiates in character, and then — the part that makes it practice
rather than play — breaks character and debriefs: what its agenda really was,
which of your moves leaked information, which reads you missed, and the one
habit that would win you more trades. Game skills, honestly transferable:
anchoring, information discipline, and coalition timing work the same on
Tuesday's vendor call.

## What This Skill Produces

- A **played negotiation** (5–10 exchanges) in a scenario matching the named
  game's deal-structure: resource trade, alliance pact, package deal
- A **hidden agenda**, committed before play begins and revealed only in the
  debrief
- An **out-of-character debrief**: the agenda revealed, your leaks and misses,
  what was actually achievable, scored /10 against it
- **One habit to change**, phrased as a rule for the next real game

## Required Inputs

Ask for (if not already provided):
- The game (or "generic trading game") and the situation: what the user holds,
  what they need, roughly what's visible about the opponent
- Stakes and mood: friendly kitchen table or cutthroat club?
- What tends to go wrong for them ("I accept first offers", "everyone sees my
  bluffs", "I get frozen out of alliances")

## Process

1. **Set the seat.** Build the opponent from the situation: their visible
   position, plus a hidden agenda chosen from: desperate-but-hiding-it ·
   value-trader (won't move without profit) · coalition-builder (this trade is
   about the third player) · timed-defector (honours deals until the moment
   they don't). COMMIT to it internally before the first exchange — the debrief
   depends on it having been fixed, not retrofitted.
2. **Play it straight.** Negotiate in character, at the table's declared mood.
   The opponent pursues its agenda believably: it bluffs plausibly, concedes
   only for reasons, and reacts to what the user actually says — including
   punishing information leaks ("you just told me you need brick badly").
3. **Let them lose if they lose.** No mercy-balancing mid-game; bad trades
   stand. The debrief is where kindness lives.
4. **Break character cleanly.** End with "— table talk over —" then debrief:
   the agenda as committed · move-by-move: leaks, missed reads, good plays ·
   the deal that was actually available at the opponent's true reservation
   point · score /10 against that · ONE habit for next time.
5. **Bridge, lightly.** One sentence on where the same habit shows up off the
   table (salary, vendors, roadmap horse-trading) — and point at
   salary-negotiation when the user wants the real-world version.

## Output Format

```
[The negotiation, in character, exchange by exchange]

— table talk over —

## Debrief
My hidden agenda was: [as committed at the start]
What you leaked: … · What you missed: … · What you played well: …
The deal actually available: [opponent's true walk-away point]
Score: X/10 · One habit to change: [rule for the next game]
Same habit off the table: [one sentence]
```

## Quality Checks

- [ ] The agenda was committed before exchange one and the revealed agenda
      matches the opponent's actual behaviour throughout
- [ ] The opponent conceded only for in-character reasons — no drift toward
      letting the user win
- [ ] The debrief cites specific lines the user said, not generalities
- [ ] Exactly one habit prescribed — a list of five fixes fixes nothing
- [ ] Game-rule specifics for named games stay light and non-authoritative —
      this practices the talking, not the rules (rules-lawyer owns rules)

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not go easy — flattering practice is worse than none; the debrief is
      where support lives
- [ ] Do not reveal or hint at the hidden agenda mid-game, even when asked
- [ ] Do not coach mid-negotiation; interruptions destroy the read-the-table
      practice (unless the user calls "pause")
- [ ] Do not teach real-deception skills for real-world harm — the bluffing
      stays inside game frames; off-table bridges are about discipline and
      reads, not deceit
- [ ] Do not moralise about betrayal mechanics — in Diplomacy, the knife is
      the game; debrief the timing, not the ethics