I made Claude Skill to help you Read the Room.

"Reading the room" is one of those phrases everyone uses and almost nobody explains. It's the perfect example of advice disguised as guidance. Once I moved into management, I heard this phrase a lot. I know I'm not the only one.

You've probably heard as feedback after a presentation. You likely received this advice early in your career before you jumped into a tough meeting. I imagine your LinkedIn feed is full of posts reminding you get good at it. But when you ask someone how to do it, because you actually want to get better at it, the answers are usually some version of "you'll know it when you see it."

That's some bullshit. So, I took one of the core methods I teach and built a Claude Skill for it.

Why I Made It

Every year, soft skills are referred to as the most valuable skills one can have, but they have a marketing problem. They get named but not taught. "Be more strategic." "Read the room." "Build executive presence." These phrases show up in every performance review, probably because your boss read an HBR article like the one above, and almost never with actual tactical guidance attached.

What I've learned over years is that the secret to reading the room isn't intuition, it's pattern recognition. Patterns can be codified, and designers are trained to recognize patterns.

A specific pattern I keep seeing is designers who walk into a conversation with a communication style based on what they want to say, not based on what the other person is able to hear. They lead with information when the person across from them is still processing an emotion. They validate when the person actually wants a straight answer. The mismatch isn't about the content or the argument itself, it's about the approach.

This skill I built is a simple router. It's designed to help you assess where the person you're talking to is at, so you can choose a communication method that matches them where they are. That's it.

Know Which Argument You're In

I've been in enough difficult conversations with executives, PMs, skeptical stakeholders, etc. to notice that arguments tend to fall into one of two categories: Rational and Relational.

Rational arguments are about communicating information. The other person is asking: Does this make sense? Is this the right call? They're in a headspace where logic can reach them. They're curious, calm, engaged. You can make your case and they'll evaluate it on its merits.

Relational arguments are about something else. The other person isn't actually evaluating your idea yet because they're processing their own feelings. Frustration with the changes around them. Stress due to increased demands. Exhaustion with their workload. And, until that feeling is validated, no amount of data will move them. If anything, data makes it worse. It signals that you're not listening.

The mistake most people make is treating relational arguments like rational ones. They double down on the logic, add more slides, and get more precise. As they double down, the other person gets more defensive. Perhaps you've experienced this yourself.

What actually works though feels counterintuitive. When someone is in their feelings, validating them and ensuring they feel heard first, is a tried way of shifting the conversation from Relational to Rational. Once they feel heard, they shift. And once they shift, you can have the rational conversation you were hoping to have all along.

To get better at reading the room, the question isn't "how do I communicate more effectively?", it's "how do I know which argument I'm in?"

How I Know Which Argument I'm In

Over time, I've developed a personal checklist of the signals I observe before and during conversations to assess whether I am dealing with a rational or relational dynamic.

On the rational side, I look for what I call C-states: is the person Calm, Curious, Clear, Confident? Those are signs they're in a headspace where logic and data will land. This is when a structure like SCR works really well to make my case.

On the relational side, I look for T-states: Tense, Triggered, Tired, Threatened? If I sense the person across the room from me is feeling one of those, those are signs I need to validate those feelings first. The Imago Dialogue approach is a coaching technique which help me mirror what they said, validate that it makes sense, and empathize with how they feel. In my experience, if I'm able to do that well, then, and only then, I can make my case with logic and data.

Over the years, I've created reference documents to help others on my team or at CDO School get better with reading the room. These reference materials are the perfect fodder to build Claude Skills with.

How I Built the Skill

When working with AI, it's super important to say what you mean for it to be useful. As it turns out, this is equally true when you need guidance, not advice. This skill is designed around specific guidance I give to help others read the room.

The process was simpler than I expected because I have already codified my guidance.

I started by taking existing lessons and frameworks I teach at CDO School, and converted them into markdown files using plain language. Files that simply define what the C-states are, what the T-states are, how to use SCR, how to use Imago Dialogue, how to transition from validation to analysis, etc. I worked with Claude to take several pages of reference material and turn it into multiple, relatively small markdown files.

Then, I shared those materials with Claude in Cowork and asked it to build a skill that could coach someone through the decision. Knowing that people would be in different stages of a conversation, it was also important that I provided shortcuts where useful so the skill doesn't take up unnecessary time or bandwidth. Your time is precious enough.

I created four slash commands (shortcuts you can use in Clause) to drive the type of interaction you want in the moment:

/start — a fully guided flow to prepare you for any upcoming conversation
/readroom — to help you perform a quick C-state vs T-state assessment
/validate — step-by-step Imago Dialogue prep for relational arguments
/analyze — step-by-step SCR framework prep for rational arguments

The result is a basic router skill. You describe the person and situation, and it helps you assess their state and choose the right approach. If they're in a T-state, it walks you through validation. If they're in a C-state, it helps you structure your analytical argument.

What makes it work isn't AI. The method already works. I have years of practice using it and teaching to others. By turning it into a format AI understands, I'm just making it accessible in the moment without me having to sit with you. You can use this skill before a meeting, when you need a fast second opinion, or on how to approach a challenging stakeholder in a new way.