Conflict Avoidance Analysis
Meetings analyzed: 2 (Sept 15 weekly sync, Sept 29 1:1 with Priya). Both are short, about 2 minutes each, so these are patterns from a small sample. I found 5 instances of avoidance, all in the weekly sync. The 1:1 showed none.
Instances of avoidance (Weekly Sync, 9/15)
1. Hedging on the schedule slip (00:00:41)
"Right, right. So, I mean, maybe we could, like, potentially look at the timeline again? If you think that makes sense. But whatever works for you."
Priya had just said the project was two weeks behind. You stacked hedges ("maybe", "like", "potentially", "if you think"). Then you handed the decision back with "whatever works for you." That gave her no direction on a real problem.
Better: "Two weeks behind is a problem. Let's decide now: cut scope or add someone?"
2. Deferring her solution (00:01:10)
Priya: "I think we need to cut scope or add a person."
Alex: "Yeah, that's a good thought. Let's, um, circle back on that."
She gave you two concrete options. You praised the idea but didn't decide anything or commit to a time. That is agreeing without commitment.
Better: "Both are on the table. I'll come back with a decision by Wednesday."
3. Glossing over the vendor risk (00:01:35)
Marcus: "...the vendor hasn't confirmed the cutover date."
Alex: "Okay, sounds fine. I'm sure it'll work out. Let's move on to hiring."
Marcus raised a risk and you said "sounds fine" and changed the subject. Marcus had to bring it up again at 02:20, when he said it could slip the whole quarter.
4. Shutting down Priya's request (00:01:58)
Priya: "Can we spend two minutes on the onboarding timeline before we move on?"
Alex: "Sure, sure, yeah, we can take that offline. Sorry, I'm just conscious of time."
This is the clearest example. Priya asked directly for time on the issue. You said "sure" but then declined, with an apology and a time-pressure reason. The meeting had time for the vendor discussion right afterward. The timeline problem never got resolved in the room.
5. Dropping the topic (whole meeting)
The onboarding delay was never resolved. It was raised at 00:25, deflected at 00:41 and 01:10, and deferred at 01:58. The agenda moved on each time it came up.
What changed afterward
- Onboarding: Priya was still stressed two weeks later (9/29). She said she had redone the flow three times and was "nowhere near" the deadline. The unresolved sync probably contributed to that.
- Vendor risk: Marcus escalated, and you handled that well (02:31–02:47). You asked what he thought, accepted his suggestion, and assigned the email with a deadline. It took a second push to get there.
Where you did it well
1:1 with Priya (9/29):
- You asked an open question: "What's getting in the way, specifically?" (00:34)
- You checked your understanding: "Did I get that right?" (01:02)
- You committed to a direct action: "I'll talk to Dana today... I'll tell her directly that further changes will move the date." (01:18) That is a conflict you were willing to take on.
- You gave specific praise (01:40).
Compare that with the sync. In the 1:1, your language was direct and committed. In the group meeting, it was hedged and you deferred.
Pattern and recommendations
Pattern: You avoid conflict in group settings when the news is bad and someone is waiting for you to decide. You do fine one-on-one. The trigger seems to be a public problem that needs a decision. Time pressure ("I'm conscious of time") is your usual exit.
- Treat "we're behind" as a decision point. Don't say "let's circle back" unless you name when.
- Drop the hedge stack. Cut "maybe", "like", "potentially" and "whatever works for you." Make a recommendation, even a tentative one.
- Honor direct requests for time. If someone asks for two minutes, give them two minutes, or say "no, because X, and we'll talk Thursday at 2."
- Don't say "sounds fine" about a risk without asking one follow-up question.
- Bring the 1:1 directness to the group. The sentence you used with Priya, "I'll tell her directly that further changes will move the date," is the tone you want.
Two meetings isn't much data. If you add more transcripts, I can check whether this holds across other group meetings, and also count filler words and speaking ratios.
Real run recorded with claude-code / claude-sonnet-5-5. Run on a sample folder with 2 invented meeting transcripts, which we wrote ourselves; all names are fictional. Tool-call lines show only the first line of each command. The model output is unmodified.
What it does
Reads transcripts of your meetings and gives you personal feedback on how you communicate, backed by quotes and timestamps.
How it works
- Finds transcript files (txt, md, vtt, srt, docx) in the folder, and checks speaker labels and timestamps.
- Asks what you want to learn if you have not said, such as avoiding conflict, interruptions, filler words, listening or facilitation.
- Looks for patterns and gives each one a finding, how often it occurred, quoted examples with timestamps, why it matters and a better phrasing.
- Summarises strengths, growth areas, speaking statistics and next steps, and can compare periods.
Good for
Self-coaching, preparing for performance reviews and coaching direct reports.
Worth knowing
In our trial, on two short invented transcripts, it quoted the hedging lines exactly, noted where the same person handled a conflict well, and said two meetings is a small sample.
Pure instruction file: no scripts. It reads the meeting transcripts you point it to. These contain other people's words, so check that you may analyse them and keep them local. The feedback is a model's reading of short text, not an objective assessment; be careful about using it to judge other people. The skill folder has no licence file of its own. The licence basis is the source repository's README, which declares the whole repository Apache-2.0 and notes that individual skills may differ. The package also contains LICENSE (the full Apache-2.0 text) and SOURCE.txt (a source and licence-basis note added by AIBars).