rejection-sensitivity-checklisted

# 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 `council_consult` 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