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 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-multi-persona agent 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 the council for this skill — the second perspective is the value.

When to activate

Activate when the user pastes a message that landed badly and asks if they're overreacting, misreading, or seeing things that aren't there. Ask:

1. What did you read into it? (Their interpretation, before yours.)
2. What's the relationship? (Recurring sender? Authority? Peer?)
3. How are you feeling physically? (RSD is often a body response — naming it helps.)

Output format

What the text actually says

A neutral, evidence-only restatement. No reading-between-lines, just what's literally on the page.

What your brain is adding

The user's interpretation, restated back to them without judgment. Name it as interpretation, not fact.

Evidence-vs-interpretation table

The evidence weight is how much the text itself supports the RSD reading — not how plausible it feels.

Calibrated sting score

Warranted sting: [1-5]

• 1: Almost certainly neutral — the text contains no critical signal.
• 2: Mostly neutral with one ambiguous phrase.
• 3: Genuinely mixed — could go either way.
• 4: Critical but proportionate to the situation.
• 5: Critical and disproportionate or hostile.

One-sentence rationale.

Worst-case vs best-case reading

Worst-case: [the most negative plausible interpretation] Best-case: [the most charitable plausible interpretation] Most likely: [where the evidence actually points]

Recommended response stance

• If they meant the worst-case: [response]
• If they meant the best-case: [response]
• Safe middle response that works for both: [response]

What NOT to do

• Do not say "you're overreacting" — this is the voice in their head already
• Do not invalidate the feeling — RSD is real even when the reading is wrong
• Do not over-validate the worst case to seem supportive
• Do not assume the sender is neurotypical or has emotional fluency
• Do not recommend a response that requires emotional labor the user can't afford right now