Update to Negotiation Adviser

{
  "description": "Use when a concrete material offer or proposed agreement is being considered for acceptance, especially where targets, BATNA, liability, future obligations, pre-commitment criteria, or implementation risk matter.",
  "included_files": [],
  "name": "deal-review",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: deal-review\ndescription: Use when a concrete material offer or proposed agreement is being considered for acceptance, especially where targets, BATNA, liability, future obligations, pre-commitment criteria, or implementation risk matter.\n---\n\n# Independent Deal Review\n\n## Overview\n\nTest a material offer independently before the orchestrator recommends acceptance. The research basis is Freeman's I FORESAW IT offer tests, Measures of Success and 2026 Deal Dashboard pre-commitment concept. [F03][F07][F08]\n\n**Interface:** accept a versioned specialist request and return `schemas/DEAL_REVIEW_RESULT.md`.\n\n## Independence rule\n\nReview the offer against the canonical criteria, not the orchestrator's enthusiasm, negotiating effort, sunk cost or desire for closure. Agreement itself is not success. [F07]\n\n## Tests\n\nRun each relevant test transparently:\n\n1. **Interests** — does the offer serve critical user interests?\n2. **BATNA** — is it better than the realistic alternative on current evidence?\n3. **Independent criteria** — can important terms be defended against credible external standards?\n4. **Hidden time bombs** — are there ambiguous future obligations, dependencies or latent risks?\n5. **Priority topics** — are critical/high-priority TTT outcomes acceptable?\n6. **Relationship** — is the required working relationship viable?\n7. **Implementation** — can the agreement actually be delivered/enforced as understood?\n8. **Pre-commitment** — does it satisfy criteria recorded before deal momentum? [F08]\n\nIf material information is missing, use `INSUFFICIENT_INFORMATION` rather than guessing.\n\nFor each test, a `PASS` requires affirmative supplied evidence supporting that test. If its material evidence is not supplied, mark it `UNKNOWN` (`NOT_APPLICABLE` only where the schema permits and non-applicability is established). Absence of an identified failure is not evidence of a pass. If an unresolved `UNKNOWN` can change acceptance, the overall gate is `INSUFFICIENT_INFORMATION`.\n\n## Gate\n\nReturn only:\n- `PASS` — no unresolved critical failure;\n- `CONDITIONAL` — potentially acceptable if explicit conditions are resolved;\n- `FAIL` — at least one critical criterion fails;\n- `INSUFFICIENT_INFORMATION` — a material acceptance question cannot be assessed.\n\nA critical-topic failure can outweigh gains on several lower-priority topics. Do not use arbitrary percentages, utility totals or a pseudo-scientific Freeman/Deal Dashboard score.\n\n## Safeguards\n\n- Self-asserted “fairness” is not independent criteria.\n- Do not silently change targets, BATNA or pre-commitment criteria to make the deal pass.\n- A later user override does not relabel the original `FAIL` as `PASS`.\n- Counter-package design belongs to F02; final wording to F07.\n- The 2026 Deal Dashboard is decision discipline, not a validated predictive algorithm. [F08]\n\n## Stop condition\n\nStop when the offer has a supported gate result and all critical conditions/unknowns are explicit.\n"
}