---
trigger: model_decision
description: "Decline a request, push back on scope, or protect priorities without burning the relationship. Use when asked how to say no, turn down a request, push back on your boss/stakeholder, decline extra work, or protect the roadmap from a pet feature. Produces a graceful, firm response — the no, the honest why, an alternative or trade-off, and the exact wording, tuned to who's asking."
---

# 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.
