agentleFS
deciqAIdeciqAI/knowledge-skills/batna-zopa/SKILL.md

batna-zopa

Skill13 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Activate when: user says 'walk-away point', 'reservation price', 'should I take this deal', 'what's my leverage', 'they won't budge', or any salary/term-sheet/vendor/M&A negotiation where stakes are non-trivial. Do NOT activate when: the situation is a purely emotional relationship dispute with no transactional dimension; cultural context makes explicit BATNA discussion taboo. More: deciqai.com/s/batna-zopa

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Check fit: relationship-only situations → point elsewhere.

    line 33
  2. Distinctive:

    Step 3 — Estimate their BATNA: Ask directly; research alternatives.

    line 47

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

BATNA & ZOPA

Overview

BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) is the value of your best fallback if no deal happens — the floor below which you walk away. A negotiator without a clear BATNA negotiates from fear; with one, from position.

ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) is the overlap between what each side will accept. If it exists, a deal is possible; if not, the question is structural change — not harder negotiating.

Composes with anchoring, signaling-games, repeated-games-reputation, and prisoners-dilemma.

When to Use

  • Any non-trivial negotiation: term sheets, salary, partnership, M&A, vendor contracts, customer pricing
  • You feel pressure to take a deal that "feels bad" — usually a sign your BATNA is weak or not modeled
  • Assess whether a deal can happen before investing time in tactics
  • Raising in the 2024–2026 AI market (term sheets, SAFEs) or committing to a GPU-cloud / compute contract, where FOMO and "capacity is scarce" pressure obscure your real alternative

Not when: purely emotional/non-transactional disputes; cultures where direct BATNA discussion is taboo.

Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)

  • Engine mode: user has a concrete deal → run The Process directly.
  • Coach mode: user is unfamiliar → guide step by step.

In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.

  1. One-line: BATNA = your walk-away value; ZOPA = the range where both sides say yes.
  2. Check fit: relationship-only situations → point elsewhere.
  3. "What negotiation are you in right now?"

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

  1. One question at a time: What's your BATNA? What's theirs? Where's the overlap?

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

  1. Name the specific opening offer and walk-away point they've identified.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

The Process

Step 1 — Compute your BATNA: specific alternative + dollar value + timeline + probability → risk-adjusted value. "Going elsewhere" is not a BATNA. Strengthen before negotiating (parallel processes, extended runway).

Step 2 — Set reservation & aspiration: Reservation > BATNA (with buffer). Opening offer > aspiration, but defensible.

Step 3 — Estimate their BATNA: Ask directly; research alternatives; observe behavior (patient = strong, pressured = weak). Their reservation caps your ceiling.

Step 4 — Find the ZOPA: Overlap of reservation prices. If none exists → structural move (add issues, extend time, find new counterparty). Not "negotiate harder."

Step 5 — Distribute within ZOPA: Open at your favorable boundary (anchoring). Make small concessions — don't split. Trade variables when single-issue stalls. Walk at reservation, not earlier or later.

Output: BATNA & ZOPA Analysis

# BATNA & ZOPA Analysis: <deal>
## My side:  BATNA <value> | Reservation $__ | Aspiration $__ | Opening $__
## Their side: Est. BATNA <…> | Est. reservation $__
## ZOPA: $__ to $__ | Exists? yes/no
## Strategy: [if ZOPA] open at __; walk at __; concede via __
##            [if no ZOPA] structural move: __
## Falsifier: observation that would tell me my estimates are wrong: __

→ Method in Action: Fisher and Ury, 1981 — The Harvard Negotiation Project · Camp David Accords, 1978 → 2026 lens: An AI startup's term sheet & compute contract (2024–2026) — build your BATNA before you negotiate the raise.

Pack: BATNA & ZOPA Patterns

NegotiationYour BATNATheir BATNA
Term sheetOther investors / bridge / status quoOther pipeline deals
SalaryOther offers, current job, savings runwayNext candidate, leave role open
Vendor contractOther vendors, build in-house, deferOther customers, lower revenue
M&AContinue independent, alternative acquirerBuild in-house, acquire competitor

Applying It Well

  • Compute BATNA before any negotiation session — mid-session computation is slow and biased
  • Model their BATNA with the same rigor as your own — it sets your ceiling
  • Multi-issue deals: identify what each side values most and trade across variables

→ Primary sources: references/sources.md

Common Rationalizations

[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.

Fake moveReality
[D] "My BATNA is strong" without specificsWhere exactly, with what offer, by when? If you can't answer, BATNA is weak.
[D] No estimate of their BATNATheir BATNA caps your aspiration — without it you over-ask or under-ask.
[D] ZOPA non-existence = "they're being difficult"Sometimes no deal exists. Structural change, not harder negotiation.
[D] Splitting the differenceSignals you have room. Make small concessions instead.
[D] Walking at aspiration, not reservationWalking early leaves money on the table.
[D] Staying past reservation (sunk costs)Negotiation effort is irrelevant. If deal < BATNA, walk.
[D] Bluffing about BATNAIf discovered, credibility collapses.
→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure patternWhat went wrong and why

Red Flags

  • "My BATNA is going elsewhere" without specifics — No estimate of their BATNA
  • Pressure to close before BATNA computation is done — ZOPA not explicitly checked
  • Reservation price not pre-committed before negotiating

Verification

  • BATNA: specific alternative, value, timeline, risk-adjusted
  • Reservation > BATNA (with buffer); opening > aspiration
  • Their BATNA estimated with reasoning; ZOPA checked
  • If no ZOPA: structural move identified
  • If ZOPA: opening, concession pattern, walk-point pre-committed

Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — 253 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/s/batna-zopa · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.

Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/batna-zopa.json

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

Reviews can't be read right now.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.