skills/by-role/leadership/feedback-delivery/SKILL.md
Deliver feedback using Kim Scott's Radical Candor framework - care personally while challenging directly. Use when a leader needs to give difficult feedback, says "I need to tell someone something hard", "how do I give feedback without hurting them", "I've been avoiding a conversation", "my direct report isn't performing", "someone on my team has a blind spot", "I keep sugarcoating things", or "how do I be honest without being a jerk". Also trigger when someone describes being too nice (ruinous empathy) or too harsh (obnoxious aggression), or when they describe avoiding a conversation they know they need to have.
npx skillsauth add qa-aman/claude-skills feedback-deliveryInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Based on "Radical Candor" by Kim Scott. The core idea: caring about someone does not mean protecting them from hard truths. Ruinous empathy - being "nice" by withholding difficult feedback - actually harms the person more than the feedback would. Radical Candor is the intersection of caring personally (genuine investment in the person) and challenging directly (honest, specific, timely feedback). Both axes matter. High care without directness is ruinous empathy. High directness without care is obnoxious aggression.
CHALLENGE DIRECTLY
High
|
Obnoxious | Radical
Aggression | Candor
|
CARE Low ------+------ High CARE
Low |
|
Manipulative | Ruinous
Insincerity | Empathy
|
Low
Most managers who think they are "being nice" are in Ruinous Empathy. Most managers who think they are "being direct" and come across as harsh are in Obnoxious Aggression. Radical Candor requires both axes high simultaneously.
Before delivering, know what kind of feedback this is:
Each type has the same framework but different urgency and framing.
Ask yourself: "Do I actually care about this person's success and growth?" If the honest answer is no, or if you are primarily irritated, wait. Feedback delivered from frustration lands as obnoxious aggression regardless of your words.
Signs you're ready:
Use Situation-Behavior-Impact to make feedback specific and inarguable.
Situation - the specific context, time, place, meeting Behavior - the observable action (not interpretation, not character) Impact - the concrete effect on you, the team, or the work
Template:
In [situation], when you [specific behavior], the impact was [concrete consequence].
Examples:
Ruinous Empathy version: "You're doing great overall, just maybe think about being more communicative with the team."
Radical Candor version: "In the sprint planning meeting on Tuesday, when you didn't share the blocker on the auth service until the end of the meeting, the team had already committed to a two-week timeline that doesn't account for it. We had to replan with engineering for 90 minutes after."
The second version is specific enough that the person can change their behavior. The first version is noise.
Timing: as close to the behavior as possible. Delayed feedback loses its anchor to the specific event and feels like a list of grievances.
Setting: 1:1, private. Never in front of others unless the behavior is currently happening and needs immediate correction.
Structure:
Do not:
Feedback without follow-up is a lecture. Within 1-2 weeks:
Before a hard conversation, fill this out:
Feedback Prep - [date]
Person: [your direct report or colleague]
Type: [course correction / pattern / developmental / positive]
Situation: [specific time and place]
Behavior: [observable action, no interpretation]
Impact: [concrete consequence on team, work, or you]
Their likely reaction: [defensive / dismissive / upset / receptive]
What I'll do if they get defensive: [specific response plan]
What success looks like for this person: [1-2 sentences]
Change I'm asking for: [specific, observable behavior going forward]
Follow-up plan: [when and what I'll look for]
1. Ruinous empathy disguised as kindness Bad: Giving vague positive feedback because you don't want to upset someone, then being frustrated when they don't improve. Good: Specific, direct feedback is a gift. Withholding it because it's uncomfortable is prioritizing your comfort over their development.
2. Character attacks instead of behavior observations Bad: "You're not a team player." Good: "In the last three sprint reviews, you didn't mention the work your teammates contributed. The impact is that your teammates feel invisible." Feedback on character is inarguable and produces defensiveness. Feedback on behavior is specific and actionable.
3. Feedback in public Bad: Correcting someone's approach in a group meeting. Good: Pull them aside after. Public correction triggers shame, not reflection. The goal is change, not humiliation.
4. Saving it for the performance review Bad: Bringing up a pattern from six months ago in an annual review. Good: Six-month-old feedback is archaeology. Deliver it within a week of the behavior. The review should contain no surprises.
5. Skipping the follow-up Bad: Giving good feedback once and assuming the job is done. Good: People revert under pressure. One conversation is a data point. A pattern of consistent feedback is the intervention.
development
Plan a webinar end-to-end using April Dunford's Obviously Awesome positioning framework to find the topic angle that makes the webinar obviously valuable to the right audience. Produces topic positioning, abstract, speaker brief, registration page, promotion sequence, day-of run-of-show, and post-webinar follow-up. Use when the user asks to plan a webinar, virtual event, online workshop, "we need a webinar on X", host a webinar, online masterclass, or any live virtual event with promotion and follow-up. Reads ICP, services, and brand voice from knowledge/.
development
Write long-form thought leadership articles, opinion pieces, industry POV essays, and CEO/founder bylines using the Made to Stick SUCCESs framework (Chip and Dan Heath). Use when the user asks for a long-form article, executive byline, opinion piece, industry POV, manifesto, "explain our point of view on X", or wants to publish an authority-building piece (1200-2500 words). Reads brand voice and positioning from knowledge/.
development
Plan a monthly content calendar across channels using the Content Marketing Matrix (Dave Chaffey, Smart Insights) - Entertain/Inspire/Educate/Convince. Every post gets a quadrant label. The monthly calendar must hit 40% Educate, 40% Inspire+Convince, 20% Entertain. Produces a week-by-week posting schedule with topics, formats, channels, and asset links. Use when the user says "content calendar", "social calendar", "plan next month's content", "what should we post", "content plan", "editorial calendar", "schedule posts for the month", or wants a structured posting plan for LinkedIn, Twitter, email, or blog. Reads brand voice, ICP, and past learnings from knowledge/.
development
Write SEO-optimized long-form articles targeting specific keywords using the They Ask You Answer Big 5 framework (Marcus Sheridan). Articles are categorized by Big 5 type (Cost, Problems, Versus, Best/Reviews, How-To) and structured accordingly. The "answer first" rule applies to every article. Use when the user asks for an SEO article, blog post for ranking, "rank for keyword X", organic content, search-optimized post, pillar page, or content for organic traffic. Includes keyword targeting, search intent matching, internal linking suggestions, and meta tags.