salary-negotiation
Plan a compensation negotiation grounded in numbers and leverage, not nerves. Use when asked to negotiate salary, evaluate or counter a job offer, prepare for a comp conversation, or compare offers. Produces a negotiation plan — total-comp comparison across offers, your target/walk-away and BATNA, the value-based justification, the counter scripts, and what to negotiate beyond base.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills /tmp/salary-negotiation && cp -r /tmp/salary-negotiation/plugins/pm-career/skills/salary-negotiation ~/.claude/skills/salary-negotiationSKILL.md
# Salary Negotiation Skill
Most people leave money on the table because they negotiate from anxiety instead of preparation. This
skill replaces nerves with a plan: compare offers on **total comp** (not just base), set a target and a
walk-away anchored to your BATNA, justify the ask with your value, and script the counter — including the
levers beyond base salary that are often easier wins.
## Required Inputs
Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:
- **The offer(s)** — base, bonus, equity, sign-on, and any other components (and competing offers, if any).
- **Your situation** — current comp, your BATNA (best alternative — a competing offer, staying put), and how badly each side needs the other.
- **Market data** — comparable ranges for the role/level/location (levels.fyi, Glassdoor, peers), if you have it.
- **What matters to you** — cash now vs. equity upside, flexibility, title, start date.
## Output Format
### Negotiation Plan: [role] at [company]
**1. Total-comp comparison** — never compare base-to-base. Lay out total annual comp across the offer(s) and your current/alternative (use the helper script). Equity and bonus often flip the ranking.
**2. Your numbers** — **target** (ambitious but justifiable), **walk-away** (below which you decline), and **anchor** (open slightly above target). All three anchored to market + your BATNA.
**3. Leverage read** — how much you have (competing offer? scarce skills? they've invested in the process?) and how to use it without bluffing.
**4. The justification** — the value-based case for the ask: your evidence (impact, comparable comp, the competing offer), framed collaboratively ("I'm excited; to make this work…").
**5. Counter scripts** — exact wording for: countering the base, responding to "that's our max", and the **non-base levers** (sign-on, equity, title/level, start date, remote, review timing) that often move when base can't.
**6. The walk-away plan** — what you do if they won't meet the walk-away (and why having decided this in advance is your real power).
## Programmatic Helper
`scripts/comp_compare.py` (stdlib only) computes total annual comp across offers so you compare apples to apples (equity amortised, sign-on annualised):
```bash
# offers.json: [{"name":"Offer A","base":160000,"bonus":24000,"equity_total":200000,"equity_years":4,"signing":20000}, ...]
python3 scripts/comp_compare.py offers.json
python3 scripts/comp_compare.py offers.json --signing-years 1 --json
```
## Quality Checks
- [ ] Offers are compared on **total comp**, not base alone (equity + bonus + sign-on included)
- [ ] A target, a walk-away, and an anchor are all set — and tied to market + BATNA
- [ ] The justification is value-based and evidenced, not "I need more"
- [ ] Non-base levers are included (sign-on, equity, title, start date, remote)
- [ ] The walk-away decision is made *before* the conversation
## Anti-Patterns
- [ ] Do not compare base to base — total comp is the real number, and equity/bonus often change which offer wins
- [ ] Do not negotiate without a walk-away decided in advance — it's the source of your leverage
- [ ] Do not bluff a competing offer you don't have — if it's called, you lose all credibility
- [ ] Do not anchor low or accept the first number — the first offer almost always has room
- [ ] Do not fixate only on base — sign-on, equity, level, and start date often move when base is capped
## Based On
Principled-negotiation practice (*Getting to Yes* — Fisher & Ury: BATNA, interests over positions) applied to compensation.Conduct a structured ethical review of an AI or ML feature, model, or product. Use when preparing to deploy an AI system, assessing algorithmic risk, auditing a model for bias, or producing a responsible AI impact assessment. Produces a structured ethics review covering fairness, transparency, privacy, safety, accountability, and societal impact with a risk tier score, pre-deployment checklist, and prioritised mitigations.
Structure AI and ML product decisions with the rigour of any product decision. Use when building AI-powered features, evaluating LLM integrations, designing AI products, or assessing AI readiness. Produces a complete AI product canvas covering problem definition, model approach, data requirements, evaluation framework, UX design, responsible AI checklist, and launch monitoring plan.
Transform feature briefs into structured design briefs that give designers the context they need before opening Figma. Use when asked to write a design brief, create a design handoff, brief a designer on a new feature, or translate a PRD into design requirements. Produces a brief with user goal, emotional context, success criteria, constraints, edge cases, and out-of-scope boundaries.
Design statistically rigorous A/B tests and interpret experiment results. Use when asked to design an experiment, run an A/B test, calculate sample size, interpret test results, or assess whether an experiment was successful. Produces a complete experiment design with hypothesis, sample size, run time, success criteria, and risk flags — or a results interpretation with ship/iterate/kill recommendation.
Synthesises user signals from multiple research sources into a unified, weighted insight brief. Use when you have data from interviews, support tickets, NPS verbatims, app reviews, or sales calls and need to reconcile contradictions, surface the underlying need behind requests, or answer 'what are users really telling us'. Produces ranked insights with confidence ratings, source weighting rationale, divergent signal analysis by user segment, and a research gap identification section.
Structure a product data analysis, metric deep-dive, funnel analysis, or cohort study. Use when asked to analyse product metrics, investigate a drop in conversion, explain a data change to stakeholders, or find the root cause of a metric movement. Produces a structured analysis with question, root cause, confidence level, and recommended action.
Interpret product metrics against goals and surface actionable signals. Use when asked to analyse product health, review key metrics, investigate a performance issue, produce a health report, or assess product-market fit signals. Produces a structured health report with RAG status, trend analysis, root cause hypotheses, and prioritised actions.
Structure a retention analysis, churn investigation, or engagement deep-dive for any product team. Use when asked to analyse user retention, investigate churn, measure DAU/MAU, or build a retention improvement plan. Produces a retention snapshot with root cause hypotheses, aha-moment correlation, and prioritised interventions.