Install
$ agentstack add skill-mohitagw15856-pm-claude-skills-saying-no ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Saying No Skill
Most people say yes to things they should decline because they don't know how to say no without seeming difficult — and then over-commit, miss what matters, or resent it. A good no is clear, respectful, and offers a path: it declines the request while honouring the relationship and, often, reframes it as a trade-off rather than a flat refusal. This skill writes that no.
Required Inputs
Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:
- The request — what's being asked, by whom (boss, peer, customer, exec), and the relationship/power dynamic.
- Why you want to decline — capacity, priorities, fit, or it's the wrong call (the honest reason shapes the no).
- Constraints — can you offer an alternative, a later yes, or a trade-off? Is a flat no required?
- Stakes — how important the relationship and the request are.
Output Format
Saying No: [the request] from [who]
1. The frame — is this a flat no, a "not now," a "yes if [trade-off]," or a "no, but here's another way"? Pick the honest one. Most good nos are trade-offs, not refusals.
2. The response — the actual wording, structured:
- Acknowledge — show you understand the request and why it matters to them.
- The no — clear and unambiguous (no false maybes that breed false hope).
- The why — honest and brief; tie it to priorities or capacity, not excuses ("to do this well I'd have to drop X — is that the trade you want?").
- The path — an alternative, a later date, a smaller version, or who else could help.
3. For "no" to a boss / stakeholder — frame it as protecting their goal: surface the trade-off and let them choose ("I can take this on, but the launch slips a week — your call"). This makes the cost visible without insubordination.
4. Hold the line — a prepared response if they push back, so you don't cave into a reluctant yes.
Tone note — warm and firm; brief beats over-justified (a pile of reasons invites negotiation of each).
Quality Checks
- [ ] The no is unambiguous — no false "maybe" that creates false hope
- [ ] It acknowledges the request and the person before declining
- [ ] The reason is honest and tied to priorities/trade-offs, not excuses
- [ ] It offers a path (alternative, later, smaller, someone else) where possible
- [ ] For upward nos, it frames the trade-off and leaves the decision with them
- [ ] There's a prepared line to hold the boundary if pushed
Anti-Patterns
- [ ] Do not give a false maybe — "let me see" to avoid the moment creates a worse letdown later
- [ ] Do not over-justify — a long list of reasons sounds defensive and invites picking each apart
- [ ] Do not say a flat "no" to a boss when a trade-off works better — make the cost visible, let them choose
- [ ] Do not apologise excessively — "I can't take this on" is fine; grovelling undermines the boundary
- [ ] Do not cave on first pushback — decide the line beforehand and have a response ready
Based On
Boundary-setting and negotiation practice — the "positive no" (William Ury), trade-off framing, and protecting priorities.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: mohitagw15856
- Source: mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.