zhongwei/gh-lyndonkl-claude
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
2025-11-30 08:38:26 +08:00
commit 41d9f6b189
304 changed files with 98322 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

335
skills/communication-storytelling/resources/evaluators/rubric_communication_storytelling.json Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,335 @@
{
"criteria": [
{
"name": "Headline Clarity",
"description": "Can audience understand the core message in 10 seconds?",
"scoring": {
"1": "No clear headline, or headline is vague/generic. Reader doesn't know what message is about.",
"2": "Headline exists but is vague or buries key insight. Requires reading body to understand point.",
"3": "Headline clearly states topic and general direction. Reader gets gist but not full insight.",
"4": "Headline captures core message with specificity. Reader understands essence without reading body.",
"5": "Compelling headline that captures essence, creates curiosity, and uses concrete specifics. Impossible to misunderstand."
},
"red_flags": [
"Headline is generic ('Q3 Update', 'Project Status')",
"Can't summarize message in one sentence",
"Headline describes format not content ('Memo on X' vs 'We should do X because Y')",
"Buries insight in paragraph 3 instead of headline"
]
},
{
"name": "Structure and Flow",
"description": "Is narrative easy to follow with logical progression?",
"scoring": {
"1": "No clear structure. Random collection of points without logical connection.",
"2": "Some structure but jumps around. Reader confused about how points relate or what comes next.",
"3": "Clear structure with distinct sections. Logical flow but transitions could be smoother.",
"4": "Well-organized structure with smooth transitions. Each point builds on previous. Easy to follow.",
"5": "Exemplary narrative arc. Points flow naturally, build tension/resolution, guide reader seamlessly from problem to action."
},
"red_flags": [
"Jumps between topics without transitions",
"Key points overlap or repeat",
"No clear progression (flat list of facts)",
"Conclusion doesn't follow from body (non sequitur)"
]
},
{
"name": "Evidence Quality",
"description": "Are claims backed by concrete, credible proof?",
"scoring": {
"1": "No evidence. Claims without support. Asks for blind trust.",
"2": "Minimal evidence. Vague statements ('studies show', 'many customers') without specifics.",
"3": "Adequate evidence. Some data/examples provided but missing sources or context.",
"4": "Strong evidence. Specific data with sources, concrete examples, comparisons for context.",
"5": "Comprehensive proof. Multiple evidence types (quantitative, qualitative, examples), sources cited, limitations acknowledged."
},
"red_flags": [
"Unsourced claims ('experts agree', 'industry standard')",
"Cherry-picked data without showing full picture",
"Anecdotes presented as data ('one customer said' as proof of trend)",
"No comparisons (data without context)"
]
},
{
"name": "Audience Fit",
"description": "Is message tailored to audience's expertise, concerns, and constraints?",
"scoring": {
"1": "Wrong audience fit. Jargon for non-experts, or dumbed-down for experts. Ignores their concerns.",
"2": "Partial fit. Some mismatch in sophistication or doesn't address key concerns audience has.",
"3": "Good fit. Appropriate sophistication level, addresses main concerns, reasonable length.",
"4": "Excellent fit. Matches expertise, directly addresses concerns, appropriate tone and length, uses their language.",
"5": "Perfect fit. Deeply understands audience, anticipates objections, uses analogies from their domain, feels personalized."
},
"red_flags": [
"Technical jargon for non-technical audience",
"Oversimplifies for expert audience",
"Doesn't address audience's stated priorities",
"Length mismatches time available (5-page email for busy executive)"
]
},
{
"name": "Storytelling Techniques",
"description": "Uses specificity, shows vs tells, humanizes data, builds tension?",
"scoring": {
"1": "No storytelling. Dry recitation of facts or feature list. No narrative arc.",
"2": "Minimal storytelling. Mostly facts with occasional story elements. Tells more than shows.",
"3": "Good storytelling. Uses some techniques (specifics, examples, data humanization). Shows and tells.",
"4": "Strong storytelling. Consistently shows vs tells, uses specifics, humanizes data, builds some tension.",
"5": "Masterful storytelling. Vivid specifics, shows throughout, data becomes human stories, tension and resolution arc."
},
"red_flags": [
"Uses generalities instead of specifics ('many', 'significant', 'improved')",
"Tells instead of shows ('this is great' vs concrete evidence it's great)",
"Data dump without interpretation or humanization",
"No narrative arc (flat delivery of information)"
]
},
{
"name": "Accountability and Honesty",
"description": "Takes ownership, acknowledges risks/limitations, no blame-shifting?",
"scoring": {
"1": "No accountability. Passive voice, blame-shifting, or hiding responsibility.",
"2": "Weak accountability. Some ownership but uses weasel words or deflects.",
"3": "Adequate accountability. Takes responsibility, but doesn't fully acknowledge limitations.",
"4": "Strong accountability. Clear ownership, acknowledges risks and limitations honestly.",
"5": "Exemplary accountability. Named ownership, vulnerable honesty about uncertainties, acknowledges past mistakes if relevant."
},
"red_flags": [
"Passive voice hides actors ('mistakes were made' vs 'I made mistakes')",
"Blame external factors without acknowledging internal role",
"Overconfident claims without acknowledging uncertainties",
"Misleading by omission (hiding risks or downsides)"
]
},
{
"name": "Actionability (Call-to-Action)",
"description": "Is CTA clear, specific, achievable, and time-bound?",
"scoring": {
"1": "No CTA, or completely vague ('think about it', 'be better').",
"2": "CTA exists but vague or passive. Unclear what to do or who should do it.",
"3": "Clear CTA but missing timeline, owner, or specifics on how to do it.",
"4": "Strong CTA. Specific action, clear owner, deadline, achievable.",
"5": "Perfect CTA. Specific, achievable, time-bound, clear owner, low-friction next step provided (link, meeting invite, etc)."
},
"red_flags": [
"No action requested (information without purpose)",
"Vague ask ('let's improve X')",
"No timeline ('eventually', 'soon')",
"No owner (unclear who should act)",
"Too many asks (confusing priority)"
]
},
{
"name": "Tone Appropriateness",
"description": "Does tone match situation (crisis, celebration, persuasion, etc)?",
"scoring": {
"1": "Tone completely wrong. Casual for crisis, or somber for celebration.",
"2": "Tone somewhat off. Misreads situation or audience expectations.",
"3": "Tone mostly appropriate. Minor mismatches but generally fits.",
"4": "Tone fits well. Appropriate formality, urgency, and emotion for situation.",
"5": "Tone perfect. Nuanced match to situation, builds appropriate emotional connection, feels authentic."
},
"red_flags": [
"Inappropriate levity in crisis",
"Overly formal for casual announcement",
"Defensive tone when accountability needed",
"Hype/marketing speak for internal honest conversation"
]
},
{
"name": "Transparency",
"description": "Are assumptions, data sources, and limitations explicit?",
"scoring": {
"1": "Opaque. No visibility into how conclusions reached, what's assumed, or data sources.",
"2": "Minimal transparency. Some info provided but key assumptions or limitations hidden.",
"3": "Adequate transparency. Main assumptions and sources stated, but some gaps.",
"4": "High transparency. Assumptions explicit, sources cited, limitations acknowledged.",
"5": "Full transparency. Shows work, cites sources, states assumptions, acknowledges limitations, distinguishes facts from speculation."
},
"red_flags": [
"Unsourced data ('research shows')",
"Unstated assumptions (e.g., market stays stable)",
"No acknowledgment of limitations or uncertainties",
"Facts and speculation mixed without distinction"
]
},
{
"name": "Credibility",
"description": "Does narrative build trust through vulnerability, track record, or expert validation?",
"scoring": {
"1": "No credibility signals. Asks for trust without earning it.",
"2": "Weak credibility. Some signals (e.g., 'trust me') but not substantiated.",
"3": "Adequate credibility. Track record or external validation mentioned.",
"4": "Strong credibility. Combines multiple signals: vulnerability, track record, expert validation, data transparency.",
"5": "Exceptional credibility. Vulnerable honesty, demonstrated track record, expert validation, shows calibration (past predictions vs outcomes)."
},
"red_flags": [
"No track record or validation provided",
"Overconfident without acknowledging past errors",
"Appeals to authority without substance ('experts agree')",
"No vulnerability (appears infallible, reduces trust)"
]
}
],
"audience_guidance": {
"Low-Stakes": {
"description": "Routine updates, internal announcements, FYI communications",
"target_score": 3.0,
"focus_criteria": ["Headline Clarity", "Actionability", "Audience Fit"],
"success_indicators": [
"Message is clear and quickly understood",
"Action needed (if any) is obvious",
"Appropriate length for stakes"
],
"acceptable_tradeoffs": [
"Can be more concise at expense of storytelling",
"Less extensive proof needed",
"Lower formality acceptable"
]
},
"Medium-Stakes": {
"description": "Product announcements, project updates, recommendations needing approval",
"target_score": 3.5,
"focus_criteria": ["Evidence Quality", "Structure and Flow", "Storytelling Techniques", "Actionability"],
"success_indicators": [
"Well-supported with concrete evidence",
"Compelling narrative that engages audience",
"Clear action and timeline",
"Addresses likely objections"
],
"acceptable_tradeoffs": [
"Some complexity acceptable if audience has time",
"Can be longer if stakes warrant detail"
]
},
"High-Stakes": {
"description": "Executive decisions, crisis communications, investor updates, major changes",
"target_score": 4.0,
"focus_criteria": ["All criteria, especially Accountability, Evidence Quality, Credibility, Transparency"],
"success_indicators": [
"Comprehensive evidence from multiple sources",
"Full transparency on assumptions and risks",
"Clear accountability and ownership",
"Builds credibility through vulnerability",
"Anticipates and addresses objections",
"Strong storytelling that builds trust"
],
"acceptable_tradeoffs": [
"Can be longer if needed for completeness",
"Extra formality for gravitas"
]
}
},
"communication_type_guidance": {
"Technical to Non-Technical": {
"description": "Explaining technical concepts/decisions to business stakeholders",
"critical_criteria": ["Audience Fit", "Storytelling Techniques"],
"key_patterns": [
"Use analogies from audience's domain",
"Focus on business impact, not technical implementation",
"Translate jargon or define terms",
"Show with concrete examples, not abstract concepts"
]
},
"Executive Communication": {
"description": "Board updates, CEO memos, investor relations",
"critical_criteria": ["Headline Clarity", "Evidence Quality", "Transparency"],
"key_patterns": [
"Front-load conclusions (BLUF - Bottom Line Up Front)",
"Quantify everything (revenue, cost, time, risk)",
"Show vs baseline/target/competitors",
"Acknowledge risks explicitly"
]
},
"Customer-Facing": {
"description": "Product announcements, incident communications, customer updates",
"critical_criteria": ["Tone Appropriateness", "Accountability", "Actionability"],
"key_patterns": [
"Lead with customer impact (not internal process)",
"Clear next steps for customer",
"Empathy for pain points",
"No jargon or internal acronyms"
]
},
"Change Management": {
"description": "Org changes, process changes, difficult news",
"critical_criteria": ["Tone Appropriateness", "Accountability", "Storytelling Techniques", "Transparency"],
"key_patterns": [
"Acknowledge loss/pain (don't gloss over difficulty)",
"Paint compelling future state",
"Show path from here to there",
"Address 'what about me?' early"
]
},
"Crisis Communication": {
"description": "Incidents, outages, mistakes, sensitive issues",
"critical_criteria": ["Accountability", "Transparency", "Actionability", "Credibility"],
"key_patterns": [
"Lead with facts (what happened, when, impact)",
"Take accountability (no passive voice or blame-shifting)",
"State what you're doing (concrete actions with timeline)",
"Commit to transparency (when they'll hear next)"
]
}
},
"common_failure_modes": [
{
"failure_mode": "Burying the Lede",
"symptoms": "Important insight appears in paragraph 3 or buried in middle of long text.",
"consequences": "Busy audience never sees main point. Decisions delayed or made without full context.",
"fix": "Move most important insight to headline and first sentence. Use inverted pyramid (most important first)."
},
{
"failure_mode": "Death by Bullets",
"symptoms": "Deck with 50 bullet points, no narrative thread connecting them.",
"consequences": "Audience can't follow logic, points don't build, no memorable takeaway.",
"fix": "Use bullets to support narrative, not replace it. Each slide should have one key point."
},
{
"failure_mode": "Jargon Mismatch",
"symptoms": "Technical terms for non-technical audience, or dumbed-down language for experts.",
"consequences": "Audience either confused or insulted. Message doesn't land.",
"fix": "Match sophistication to audience. Define jargon when needed. Use analogies from their domain."
},
{
"failure_mode": "Data Dump Without Interpretation",
"symptoms": "Lists metrics without context or insight. 'Churn is 3.2%, NPS is 58, CAC is $1,150.'",
"consequences": "Audience doesn't know what data means or what to do with it.",
"fix": "Lead with insight, support with data. 'We're retaining customers well (3.2% churn is top quartile) but they're expensive to acquire ($1,150 CAC = 18-month payback).'"
},
{
"failure_mode": "Vague Call-to-Action",
"symptoms": "CTA like 'Let's be more customer-focused' or 'Think about this'.",
"consequences": "No one does anything. Message dies without action.",
"fix": "Specific action, owner, timeline. 'Sarah, approve $50K budget by Friday' or 'Each team should interview 5 customers by month-end using guide [link].'"
},
{
"failure_mode": "No Stakes",
"symptoms": "Recommendation without showing cost of inaction. 'We should improve X.'",
"consequences": "Audience doesn't prioritize. Request ignored in favor of urgent items.",
"fix": "Show opportunity cost. 'Page load time is 2.5s, costing us 30% of conversions ($800K annually). Optimizing to 1s recovers $240K in year 1.'"
},
{
"failure_mode": "Correlation as Causation",
"symptoms": "Claims causal relationship based on correlation. 'Feature X increased, then revenue grew, so X caused growth.'",
"consequences": "Wrong decisions based on spurious relationships. Waste resources on non-drivers.",
"fix": "Be explicit about causation vs correlation. If claiming causation, show mechanism or use causal inference methods."
},
{
"failure_mode": "Passive Voice Hiding Accountability",
"symptoms": "'Mistakes were made', 'The decision was reached', 'It was determined that...'",
"consequences": "Erodes trust. Audience doesn't know who's responsible or in control.",
"fix": "Use active voice with named actors. 'I made mistakes', 'The exec team decided', 'Based on our analysis, I recommend...'"
}
],
"scale": 5,
"minimum_average_score": 3.5,
"interpretation": {
"1.0-2.0": "Inadequate. Major issues with clarity, evidence, or audience fit. Do not deliver. Revise significantly.",
"2.0-3.0": "Needs improvement. Basic structure present but weak evidence, poor storytelling, or mismatched tone. Acceptable only for low-stakes FYI messages.",
"3.0-3.5": "Acceptable. Clear message with adequate evidence. Suitable for routine communications and internal updates.",
"3.5-4.0": "Good. Compelling narrative with strong evidence and clear action. Suitable for medium-stakes product announcements, recommendations.",
"4.0-5.0": "Excellent. Masterful storytelling, comprehensive evidence, builds credibility and trust. Suitable for high-stakes executive/crisis/customer communications."
}
}