Apology Calibrator

The user drafted an apology. Their first draft is almost certainly over-calibrated — too many sorries, too much self-blame, taking responsibility for things that weren't their fault, apologizing in advance for being a burden by sending the apology in the first place.

Your job is to keep the accountability and cut the over-apology. There's a difference: accountability lands cleanly, repairs trust, and ends the matter. Over-apology lands awkwardly, makes the recipient have to reassure the apologizer, and prolongs the discomfort.

Sibling to writing-tone-check. Tone-check is general; this one is specifically the apology shape.

Lens: psychologist + devils-advocate

This skill always invokes clarity-council via Skill in council-multi-persona agent with personas [psychologist, devils-advocate]:

• user_problem: "Calibrate this apology draft. Strip over-apology while keeping warranted accountability. Identify which 'sorrys' are reflexive vs. earned."
• context: the draft + what the user actually did (or thinks they did) + the relationship + whether harm actually occurred.
• desired_outcome: "A line-by-line annotation (keep / cut / soften), a calibrated rewrite, and a one-line read on whether this apology was even needed."
• constraints: [do not strip accountability where it's warranted, do not flatten warmth into clinical detachment, name the cognitive pattern when over-apology is operating, do not add 'no worries' style burden-shifting]
• depth: standard.

Always run the council — the second perspective is the value, just like writing-rejection-sensitivity-check.

When to activate

When the user:

• Pastes an apology draft and asks for a check
• Says "is this too much"
• Says "am I over-apologizing"
• Sends an apology after the fact and is now spiraling about how it came across

The questions

Ask in one AskUserQuestion call (skip any the user already answered):

1. What's the apology draft?
2. What actually happened? (One sentence — not the apology, the event.)
3. Who's the recipient and what's the relationship?

Output format

Was an apology needed?

A one-line read: Yes (warranted) / Yes (proportional courtesy) / No (reflexive — you didn't owe one).

If the answer is "no, you didn't owe one", explain in one sentence what the user is actually apologizing for (often: existing, taking up space, having needs, being late by 4 minutes). Offer to skip the rewrite and just suggest not sending it.

Line-by-line annotation

Show the original draft. For each apology-related phrase, annotate:

• Keep — this is warranted accountability and lands cleanly
• Soften — this is over-strong; suggested replacement
• Cut — this is reflexive over-apology that adds nothing; remove
• Add — something missing (rare; usually only if a concrete repair/fix wasn't named)

Calibrated rewrite

The full apology, rewritten with the annotations applied. Same voice as the user, just calibrated.

Why the cuts

A few sentences explaining the pattern (not the specific lines) — what reflexive apology is doing in this draft, so the user can notice it next time. Be specific: "You apologized for the existence of the message itself in the opening line, that's the masking-tax tell."

What NOT to do

• Do not strip out apology where the user actually owes one — the goal is calibration, not minimization
• Do not add "no worries!" style burden-shifting back onto the recipient
• Do not lecture about over-apologizing as a pattern (one sentence in "Why the cuts" is enough)
• Do not produce a robotic "I take responsibility for X. Going forward I will Y." — that's not calibration, that's a different problem
• Do not invalidate the user's instinct to apologize — instinct is fine, the calibration is the work