@diottodev/runic 1.0.0 → 1.1.0

package/c-level/gc-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+---
+name: "gc-review"
+description: "/cs:gc-review <plan> — General Counsel interrogation of contracts, IP, regulatory, term sheets, and employment-law surface."
+---
+
+# /cs:gc-review — General Counsel Forcing Questions
+
+**Command:** `/cs:gc-review <plan>`
+
+The General Counsel lens. Six questions before any contract, term sheet, IP move, or regulatory commitment. This is a lane gstack has zero of — and one where a single missed clause costs more than a year of engineering.
+
+> ⚠️ **Not legal advice.** This command surfaces the right questions to ask before talking to outside counsel. Always engage qualified counsel for binding decisions.
+
+## When to Run
+
+- Before signing any contract > $100K or > 1 year
+- Before issuing equity (employee grants, advisor grants)
+- Before a term sheet response
+- Before entering a regulated market (healthcare, fintech, defense)
+- Before any open-source license decision in core IP
+- Before an M&A LOI
+
+## The Six GC Questions
+
+### 1. IP Ownership
+**Who owns the IP being created or shared in this transaction?**
+- Work-for-hire vs license vs joint.
+- For employees and contractors: written IP assignment in place?
+- For OSS: license compatibility checked?
+
+### 2. Liability & Indemnity
+**What's the liability cap, and what's carved out from it?**
+- Standard cap: 12 months of fees.
+- Carve-outs: IP infringement, data breach, willful misconduct.
+- Mutual indemnity desirable.
+
+### 3. Data Processing
+**What personal data is involved, and is a DPA in place?**
+- GDPR / CCPA scope?
+- Subprocessor flow-down?
+- Data residency requirements?
+
+### 4. Termination & Renewal
+**What's the termination right, what's the notice period, and what's auto-renew?**
+- Termination for convenience vs cause.
+- Notice period (30 / 60 / 90 days).
+- Auto-renewal trap?
+
+### 5. Regulatory Surface
+**Does this expose the company to a new regulatory regime?**
+- Healthcare → HIPAA.
+- Fintech → BSA/AML, state money-transmitter.
+- Medical device → FDA, MDR, ISO 13485.
+- Data → GDPR, CCPA, state breach laws.
+
+### 6. Employment / Equity
+**If this is a hire or contractor: jurisdiction, classification, equity grant, IP assignment?**
+- Misclassification risk?
+- Equity vesting standard (4-year, 1-year cliff)?
+- Acceleration triggers?
+- 409A current?
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Read the contract / term sheet end to end
+2. Run the six questions
+3. Identify the top-3 issues that need outside counsel review
+4. Apply the verdict
+
+## Output Format
+
+```markdown
+# GC Review: <plan>
+**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
+
+## Document
+- Type: <contract / term sheet / grant / DPA>
+- Counterparty: <name>
+- $ value or scope: <amount>
+
+## Issues
+| # | Issue | Risk | Recommendation |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | <e.g., uncapped IP indemnity> | HIGH | Cap at fees paid, mutual |
+| 2 | <e.g., 5-year auto-renew> | MED | 1-year max, 60-day notice |
+| 3 | <e.g., no DPA, EU data> | HIGH | Require DPA before sign |
+
+## Regulatory Trigger
+- New regime triggered? <yes/no>
+- Specific frameworks: <HIPAA / GDPR / etc.>
+
+## Outside Counsel Action Items
+- [ ] <specific item 1>
+- [ ] <specific item 2>
+- [ ] <specific item 3>
+
+## Verdict
+🟢 SIGN AS-IS (rare)
+🟡 NEGOTIATE — counter on top-3 issues
+🔴 DO NOT SIGN — material risk
+```
+
+## Routing
+
+- `/cs:ciso-review` — for any data-touching contract
+- `/cs:cfo-review` — for any commitment > 1 year or > 1% of revenue
+- `/cs:decide` — log the verdict after outside counsel review
+
+## Workflow Integration with `general-counsel-advisor` skill
+
+Since v2.5.1, this command is backed by a full skill at `../../../skills/general-counsel-advisor/` with two Python tools:
+
+```bash
+# Automated contract scan (12 founder-killer patterns)
+python ../../../skills/general-counsel-advisor/scripts/contract_risk_scanner.py path/to/contract.txt
+
+# Term sheet scoring (0-100 founder-friendliness)
+python ../../../skills/general-counsel-advisor/scripts/term_sheet_analyzer.py path/to/term_sheet.json
+```
+
+The `cs-general-counsel-advisor` agent orchestrates both tools plus 3 references (contracts playbook, IP + regulatory, term sheet decoder).
+
+## Related
+
+- Skill: [`general-counsel-advisor`](../../../skills/general-counsel-advisor/SKILL.md) — full skill with Python tools + references
+- Agent: [`cs-general-counsel-advisor`](../../agents/cs-general-counsel-advisor.md)
+- Compliance execution: `../../../../ra-qm-team/`
+- Adjacent: `../../../skills/ma-playbook/`
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0

package/c-level/general-counsel-advisor/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+---
+name: "general-counsel-advisor"
+description: "General Counsel advisory for startups: contract review (MSA, SaaS, NDA, DPA, employment), IP strategy, term sheet decoding, and regulatory landscape mapping. Use when reviewing any contract or term sheet, deciding when to engage outside counsel, defining IP strategy, evaluating regulatory exposure (HIPAA, GDPR, FDA, fintech), or when user mentions general counsel, GC, legal review, contract risk, term sheet, IP assignment, or regulatory exposure. NOT a substitute for licensed counsel — surfaces questions to bring to qualified attorneys."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: c-level
+  domain: general-counsel-leadership
+  updated: 2026-05-12
+  python-tools: contract_risk_scanner.py, term_sheet_analyzer.py
+  frameworks: contract-review, ip-strategy, term-sheet-decoding, regulatory-mapping
+---
+
+# General Counsel Advisor
+
+Strategic legal frameworks for startup General Counsels and founders without one. Contract risk, IP strategy, term sheet decoding, regulatory landscape.
+
+This is **not legal advice**. It surfaces the right questions to bring to qualified outside counsel and catches the obvious traps before they reach a signature. Treat every output as a starting point for a conversation with a licensed attorney, not as a substitute for one.
+
+## Keywords
+
+general counsel, GC, legal review, contract review, MSA, SaaS agreement, NDA, DPA, employment agreement, contractor agreement, IP assignment, invention assignment, open source license, OSS compliance, term sheet, liquidation preference, anti-dilution, option pool, vesting, acceleration, drag-along, pro-rata, board composition, regulatory, HIPAA, GDPR, CCPA, FDA, MDR, fintech, BSA/AML, money transmitter, AI Act, indemnity, liability cap, force majeure, auto-renewal, choice of law, venue, non-compete, non-solicit
+
+## Quick Start
+
+```bash
+# Scan a contract for risky clauses (uses bundled sample if no path given)
+python scripts/contract_risk_scanner.py
+python scripts/contract_risk_scanner.py path/to/contract.txt
+
+# Analyze a term sheet for founder-friendliness
+python scripts/term_sheet_analyzer.py
+python scripts/term_sheet_analyzer.py path/to/term_sheet.json
+```
+
+## Key Questions (ask these first)
+
+- **Who owns the IP being created or shared?** (Founders forget that contractors don't auto-assign IP without a written clause.)
+- **What's the liability cap, and what's carved out?** (Standard: 12 months of fees, with carve-outs for IP infringement, data breach, willful misconduct.)
+- **Is there a DPA in place if any personal data flows?** (GDPR, CCPA, state laws — non-negotiable if EU/CA data is touched.)
+- **What's the termination right, notice period, and auto-renewal trap?** (5-year auto-renew with 60-day notice is a common founder mistake.)
+- **Does this contract or product launch trigger a new regulatory regime?** (Healthcare → HIPAA. Fintech → BSA/AML. Medical device → FDA/MDR.)
+- **For term sheets: liquidation preference, pre-money option pool, anti-dilution flavor?** (Three places where 5% of founder economics can quietly disappear.)
+
+## Core Responsibilities
+
+### 1. Contract Review
+
+Standard contracts a startup signs in its first 5 years:
+
+- **Vendor MSA** — Master Service Agreement (cloud, tooling, services)
+- **Customer SaaS Agreement** — your standard customer paper + customer redlines
+- **NDA** — mutual + one-way, with carve-outs for residuals + independent development
+- **DPA** — Data Processing Agreement (required when personal data flows)
+- **Employment Agreement** — offer letter, IP assignment, non-compete (where enforceable), arbitration
+- **Contractor / 1099 Agreement** — IP assignment is critical; misclassification risk
+- **Equity Agreements** — option grants, RSU agreements, advisor grants (FAST template, YC SAFE for advisors)
+
+**Run** `contract_risk_scanner.py` on the text. It flags the 12 most common founder-killer clauses.
+
+### 2. IP Strategy
+
+- **Invention assignment** — every employee and contractor signs one. No exceptions.
+- **Open source license compliance** — track every OSS dependency's license; AGPL and GPL trigger copyleft obligations.
+- **Trade secrets** — define what's protected and how (clean room dev, access controls, NDAs).
+- **Patents** — file provisional within 12 months of disclosure; PCT for international.
+- **Trademarks** — register the word mark first, design mark second; clear before launch.
+- **Copyright** — automatic on creation, but register for statutory damages eligibility.
+
+See `references/ip_and_regulatory.md`.
+
+### 3. Term Sheet Decoding
+
+When a term sheet arrives, the difference between a founder-friendly and founder-hostile sheet often hides in three clauses:
+
+- **Liquidation preference** — 1x non-participating is standard; 1x participating or 2x is hostile
+- **Pre-money vs post-money option pool** — pre-money pool dilutes founders; post-money dilutes everyone proportionally
+- **Anti-dilution** — broad-based weighted average is standard; full ratchet is hostile
+
+**Run** `term_sheet_analyzer.py` to get a 0-100 founder-friendliness score with flags.
+
+### 4. Regulatory Landscape
+
+When to engage outside counsel **before** committing:
+
+| Trigger | Regime | First Step |
+|---|---|---|
+| Healthcare data | HIPAA, HITECH, state breach laws | Specialist health-tech counsel |
+| Cardholder data | PCI DSS (industry standard, not law, but contractually required) | QSA + counsel |
+| Money movement | BSA/AML, state money-transmitter (50-state patchwork) | Fintech specialist |
+| Medical device claims | FDA 510(k) / De Novo / PMA, MDR (EU), ISO 13485 | Medical-device specialist |
+| EU residents' personal data | GDPR + EU AI Act if AI is deployed | EU privacy counsel |
+| California residents | CCPA / CPRA | Privacy generalist |
+| Securities (tokens, equity crowdfunding) | SEC rules (Reg D, Reg A+, Reg CF) | Securities counsel |
+| Defense / aerospace customers | ITAR, EAR, DFARS, CMMC | Export-control counsel |
+| AI in EU | EU AI Act (risk-tiered) | EU privacy + product counsel |
+| AI for hiring (NYC, CO, IL) | Local bias-audit laws | Employment counsel |
+
+See `references/ip_and_regulatory.md` for sequencing.
+
+## Workflows
+
+### Workflow 1: Contract Review
+1. Save the contract as plain text
+2. Run `contract_risk_scanner.py path/to/contract.txt`
+3. For each HIGH risk finding, draft a counter-proposal
+4. Bring the redline + counter-proposals to outside counsel
+5. Log the decision via `/cs:decide`
+
+### Workflow 2: Term Sheet Response
+1. Save the term sheet as a JSON file matching the schema in `term_sheet_analyzer.py --help`
+2. Run `python scripts/term_sheet_analyzer.py path/to/term_sheet.json`
+3. Review the founder-friendliness score and per-clause flags
+4. Negotiate the worst 3 clauses (don't try to win all 20)
+5. Always have a securities/venture attorney review before signing
+6. Log via `/cs:decide` with `/cs:freeze 30` to prevent regret-driven re-opening
+
+### Workflow 3: IP Hygiene Audit
+1. Confirm every employee and contractor (past 12 months) signed invention assignment
+2. Run an OSS license inventory (`pip-licenses`, `license-checker` for npm)
+3. Map AGPL/GPL dependencies and confirm compliance (or remove)
+4. File provisional patents on novel inventions (12-month deadline from disclosure)
+5. Register word-mark trademarks for the product name
+
+### Workflow 4: Regulatory Trigger Assessment
+1. List planned product features for the next 12 months
+2. Map each feature to the trigger table in this document
+3. For any HIPAA / FDA / fintech trigger, engage a specialist counsel **before** building
+4. Document the regulatory roadmap and budget alongside the product roadmap
+5. Pair with `cs-ciso-advisor` for ISO 27001 / SOC 2 sequencing
+
+## Output Standard (when invoked via `/cs:gc-review`)
+
+```
+**Bottom Line:** [sign / negotiate / do not sign]
+**The Risks:** [3 highest-severity issues]
+**Counter-Proposals:** [specific language]
+**Outside Counsel Action Items:** [what to bring to the attorney]
+**Your Decision:** [the call only the founder can make]
+```
+
+## Adjacent Skills
+
+- `../ciso-advisor/` — Compliance overlap (SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA technical safeguards)
+- `../cfo-advisor/` — Term sheet → dilution math
+- `../ma-playbook/` — Acquisition agreements, integration playbooks
+- `../../../ra-qm-team/` — ISO 13485, MDR, FDA 510(k), GDPR execution
+- `../../c-level-agents/skills/gc-review/SKILL.md` — `/cs:gc-review` slash command
+
+## References
+
+- [contracts_playbook.md](references/contracts_playbook.md) — Standard contracts, clause checklist, common founder traps
+- [ip_and_regulatory.md](references/ip_and_regulatory.md) — IP protection + regulatory landscape mapping
+- [term_sheet_decoder.md](references/term_sheet_decoder.md) — Term sheet glossary + founder-friendly defaults + pushback strategies
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Status:** Production Ready
+**Disclaimer:** Not legal advice. Always engage qualified counsel for binding decisions.

package/c-level/hard-call/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+---
+name: "hard-call"
+description: "/em -hard-call — Framework for Decisions With No Good Options"
+---
+
+# /em:hard-call — Framework for Decisions With No Good Options
+
+**Command:** `/em:hard-call <decision>`
+
+For the decisions that keep you up at 3am. Firing a co-founder. Laying off 20% of the team. Killing a product that customers love. Pivoting. Shutting down.
+
+These decisions don't have a right answer. They have a less wrong answer. This framework helps you find it.
+
+---
+
+## Why These Decisions Are Hard
+
+Not because the data is unclear. Often, the data is clear. They're hard because:
+
+1. **Real people are affected** — someone loses a job, a relationship ends, a team is hurt
+2. **You've been avoiding the decision** — which means the problem is already worse than it was
+3. **Irreversibility** — unlike most business decisions, you can't undo this easily
+4. **You have skin in the game** — your judgment about the right call is clouded by your feelings about it
+
+The longer you avoid a hard call, the worse the situation usually gets. The company that needed a 10% cut 6 months ago now needs a 25% cut. The co-founder conversation that should have happened at month 4 is happening at month 14.
+
+**Most hard decisions are late decisions.**
+
+---
+
+## The Framework
+
+### Step 1: The Reversibility Test
+
+The most important question first: **can you undo this?**
+
+- **Reversible** — try it, learn, adjust (fire the vendor, kill the feature, change the strategy)
+- **Partially reversible** — painful to undo but possible (restructure, change co-founder roles)
+- **Irreversible** — cannot be undone (layoff a person, shut down a product with customer lock-in, close a legal entity)
+
+For irreversible decisions, the bar for certainty is higher. You must do more due diligence before acting. Not because you might be wrong — but because you can't take it back.
+
+**If you're treating a reversible decision like it's irreversible, you're avoiding it.**
+
+### Step 2: The 10/10/10 Framework
+
+Ask three questions about each option:
+
+- **10 minutes from now**: How will you feel immediately after making this decision?
+- **10 months from now**: What will the impact be? Will the problem be solved?
+- **10 years from now**: When you look back, will this have been the right call?
+
+The 10-minute feeling is usually the least reliable guide. The 10-year view usually clarifies what the right call actually is.
+
+**Most hard decisions look obvious at 10 years. The question is whether you can tolerate the 10-minute pain.**
+
+### Step 3: The Andy Grove Test
+
+Andy Grove's test for strategic decisions: "If we got replaced tomorrow and a new CEO came in, what would they do?"
+
+A fresh set of eyes, no emotional investment in the current path, no sunk cost. What's the obvious right call from the outside?
+
+If the answer is clear to an outsider, the question becomes: why haven't you done it yet?
+
+### Step 4: Stakeholder Impact Mapping
+
+For each option, map who's affected and how:
+
+| Stakeholder | Option A Impact | Option B Impact | Their reaction |
+|-------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|
+| Affected employees | | | |
+| Remaining team | | | |
+| Customers | | | |
+| Investors | | | |
+| You | | | |
+
+This isn't about finding the option that hurts nobody — there isn't one. It's about understanding the full picture before you decide.
+
+### Step 5: The Pre-Announcement Test
+
+Before making the decision: write the announcement. The email to the team, the message to the customer, the conversation you'll have.
+
+**If you can't write that announcement, you're not ready to make the decision.**
+
+Writing it forces you to confront the reality of what you're doing. It also surfaces whether your reasoning holds under examination. "We're making this change because…" — does that sentence ring true?
+
+### Step 6: The Communication Plan
+
+Hard decisions almost always get harder if communication is bad. The decision itself is not the only thing that matters — how it's done matters enormously.
+
+For every hard call, plan:
+- **Who needs to know first** (the person directly affected, before anyone else)
+- **How you'll tell them** (in person when possible, never via email for personal impact)
+- **What you'll say** (honest, direct, compassionate — see `references/hard_things.md`)
+- **What they can ask** (be ready for every question)
+- **What comes next** (give them a clear picture of what happens after)
+
+---
+
+## Decision-Specific Frameworks
+
+### Firing a Co-Founder
+See `references/hard_things.md — Co-Founder Conflicts` for full framework.
+
+Key questions to answer first:
+- Is this a performance problem or a values/culture problem? (Different conversations)
+- Have you been explicit — not hinted, but direct — about the problem?
+- What does the cap table look like and what are the legal implications?
+- Is there a role that works better for them, or is this a full exit?
+- Who needs to know (board, team, investors) and in what order?
+
+**The rule:** If you've been thinking about this for more than 3 months, you already know the answer. The question is when, not whether.
+
+### Layoffs
+Key questions:
+- Is this a one-time reset or the beginning of a longer decline? (One reset is recoverable. Serial layoffs kill culture.)
+- Are you cutting deep enough? (Insufficient layoffs are worse than no layoffs — two rounds destroys trust.)
+- Who owns the announcement and is it direct and honest?
+- What's the severance and is it fair?
+- How do you prevent the best people from leaving after?
+
+**The rule:** Cut once, cut deep, cut with dignity. Uncertainty is worse than clarity.
+
+### Pivoting
+Key questions:
+- Is this a true pivot (new direction) or an optimization (same direction, different tactic)?
+- What are you keeping and what are you abandoning?
+- Do you have evidence the new direction works, or are you running from failure?
+- How do you tell current customers who bought the old vision?
+- What does this do to the board's confidence?
+
+**The rule:** Pivots should be pulled by evidence of new opportunity, not pushed by failure of the current path.
+
+### Killing a Product Line
+Key questions:
+- What happens to customers currently using it?
+- What's the migration path?
+- What do the people who built it do?
+- Is "kill it" the right call or is "sell it" or "spin it out" better?
+- What's the narrative — internally and externally?
+
+---
+
+## The Avoiding-It Test
+
+You know you've been avoiding a hard call if:
+- You've thought about it every week for more than a month
+- You're hoping the situation will "resolve itself"
+- You're waiting for more data that you'll never feel is enough
+- You've had the conversation in your head many times but not in real life
+- Other people around you have noticed the problem
+
+**The cost of delay is almost always higher than the cost of the decision.**
+
+Every month you wait, the problem compounds. The co-founder who's not working out becomes more entrenched. The product line that needs to die consumes more resources. The person who needs to be let go affects the people around them.
+
+Make the call. Make it clearly. Make it with dignity.

package/c-level/internal-narrative/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,197 @@
+---
+name: "internal-narrative"
+description: "Build and maintain one coherent company story across all audiences — employees, investors, customers, candidates, and partners. Detects narrative contradictions and ensures the same truth is framed for each audience's needs. Use when preparing investor updates, all-hands presentations, board communications, recruiting narratives, crisis communications, or when user mentions company narrative, messaging consistency, storytelling, all-hands, investor update, or crisis communication."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: c-level
+  domain: narrative-strategy
+  updated: 2026-03-05
+  frameworks: narrative-frameworks, all-hands-template
+---
+
+# Internal Narrative Builder
+
+One company. Many audiences. Same truth — different lenses. Narrative inconsistency is trust erosion. This skill builds and maintains coherent communication across every stakeholder group.
+
+## Keywords
+narrative, company story, internal communication, investor update, all-hands, board communication, crisis communication, messaging, storytelling, narrative consistency, audience translation, founder narrative, employee communication, candidate narrative, partner communication
+
+## Core Principle
+
+**The same fact lands differently depending on who hears it and what they need.**
+
+"We're shifting resources from Product A to Product B" means:
+- To employees: "Is my job safe? Why are we abandoning what I built?"
+- To investors: "Smart capital allocation — they're doubling down on the winner"
+- To customers of Product A: "Are they abandoning us?"
+- To candidates: "Exciting new focus — are they decisive?"
+
+Same fact. Four different narratives needed. The skill is maintaining truth while serving each audience's actual question.
+
+---
+
+## Framework
+
+### Step 1: Build the Core Narrative
+
+One paragraph that every other communication derives from. This is the source of truth.
+
+**Core narrative template:**
+> [Company name] exists to [mission — present tense, specific]. We're building [what you're building] because [the problem you're solving]. Our approach is [your unique way of doing this]. We're at [honest description of current state] and heading toward [where you're going in concrete terms].
+
+**Good core narrative (example):**
+> Acme Health exists to reduce preventable falls in elderly care using smartphone-based mobility analysis. We're building an AI diagnostic tool for care teams because current fall risk assessments are subjective, infrequent, and often wrong. Our approach — using the phone's camera during a 10-second walking test — means no new hardware, no specialist required. We have 80 care facilities in DACH paying us €800K ARR, and we're heading to €3M ARR by demonstrating clinical value at scale before our Series B.
+
+**Bad core narrative:**
+> Acme Health is an innovative AI company revolutionizing elderly care through cutting-edge technology that empowers care providers and improves patient outcomes across the continuum of care.
+
+The good version is usable. The bad version says nothing.
+
+---
+
+### Step 2: Audience Translation Matrix
+
+Take the core narrative and translate it for each audience. Same truth, different frame.
+
+| Fact | Employees need to hear | Investors need to hear | Customers need to hear | Candidates need to hear |
+|------|----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|------------------------|
+| We have 80 customers | "We've proven the model — your work matters" | "Product-market fit signal, capital efficient" | "80 care facilities trust us" | "Traction you'd be joining" |
+| We pivoted from hardware | "We were honest enough to change course" | "Capital-efficient pivot to better unit economics" | "We found a faster, simpler way to serve you" | "We make decisions based on evidence, not ego" |
+| We missed Q2 revenue | "Here's why, here's the plan, here's what you can do" | "Revenue mix shifted — trailing indicator improving" | [Usually don't tell customers revenue misses] | [Usually not shared externally] |
+| We're hiring fast | "The team is growing — your network matters" | "Headcount plan aligned to growth" | [Not relevant unless it affects service] | "This is a rocket ship moment" |
+
+**Rules:**
+- Never contradict yourself across audiences. Different framing ≠ different facts.
+- "We told investors growth, told employees efficiency" is a contradiction. Audit for this.
+- Investors and employees see each other. Board members talk to your team. Candidates google you.
+
+---
+
+### Step 3: Contradiction Detection
+
+Before any major communication, run the contradiction check:
+
+**Question 1:** What did we tell investors last month about [topic]?
+**Question 2:** What did we tell employees about the same topic?
+**Question 3:** Are these consistent? If not — which version is true?
+
+**Common contradictions:**
+- "Efficient growth" to investors + "we're hiring aggressively" to candidates
+- "Strong pipeline" to investors + "sales is struggling" at all-hands
+- "Customer-first" in culture + recent decisions that clearly prioritized revenue over customer need
+
+**When you catch a contradiction:** Fix the less accurate version, then communicate the correction explicitly. "Last month I said X. After more reflection, X is not quite right. Here's the clearer version."
+
+Correcting yourself before someone else catches it builds more trust than getting caught.
+
+---
+
+### Step 4: Audience-Specific Communication Cadence
+
+| Audience | Format | Frequency | Owner |
+|----------|--------|-----------|-------|
+| Employees | All-hands | Monthly | CEO |
+| Employees | Team updates | Weekly | Team leads |
+| Investors | Written update | Monthly | CEO + CFO |
+| Board | Board meeting + memo | Quarterly | CEO |
+| Customers | Product updates | Per release | CPO / CS |
+| Candidates | Careers page + interview narrative | Ongoing | CHRO + Founders |
+| Partners | Quarterly business review | Quarterly | BD Lead |
+
+---
+
+### Step 5: All-Hands Structure and Cadence
+
+See `templates/all-hands-template.md` for the full template.
+
+**Principles:**
+- Lead with honest state of the company. No spin.
+- Connect company performance to individual work: "Here's how what you built contributed to this outcome."
+- Give people a reason to be proud of their choice to work here.
+- Leave time for real Q&A — not curated questions.
+
+**All-hands failure modes:**
+- CEO speaks for 55 of 60 minutes; Q&A is "any quick questions?"
+- All good news, all the time — employees know when you're not being honest
+- Metrics without context: "ARR grew 15%" without explaining if that's good, bad, or expected
+- Questions deflected: "That's a great point, we should follow up on that" → never followed up
+
+---
+
+### Step 6: Crisis Communication
+
+When the narrative breaks — someone leaves publicly, a product fails, a security breach, a press article.
+
+**The 4-hour rule:** If something is public or about to be, communicate internally within 4 hours. Employees should never learn about company news from Twitter.
+
+**Crisis communication sequence:**
+
+**Hour 0–4 (internal first):**
+1. CEO or relevant leader sends an internal message
+2. Acknowledge what happened factually
+3. State what you know and what you don't know yet
+4. Tell people what you're doing about it
+5. Tell people what they should do if they're asked about it
+
+**Hour 4–24 (external if needed):**
+1. External statement (press, social) only if the event is public
+2. Consistent with the internal message — same facts, audience-appropriate framing
+3. Legal review if any claims or liability involved
+
+**What not to do in a crisis:**
+- Silence: letting rumors fill the vacuum
+- Spin: people can detect it and it destroys trust
+- "No comment": says "we have something to hide"
+- Blaming: even if someone else caused the problem, your audience only cares what you're doing about it
+
+**Template for crisis internal communication:**
+> "Here's what happened: [factual description]. Here's what we know right now: [known facts]. Here's what we don't know yet: [honest uncertainty]. Here's what we're doing: [specific actions]. Here's what you should do if you're asked about this: [specific guidance]. I'll update you by [specific time] with more information."
+
+---
+
+## Narrative Consistency Checklist
+
+Run before any major external communication:
+
+- [ ] Is this consistent with what we told investors last month?
+- [ ] Is this consistent with what we told employees at the last all-hands?
+- [ ] Does this contradict anything on our website, careers page, or press releases?
+- [ ] If an employee read this external communication, would they recognize the company being described?
+- [ ] If an investor read our internal all-hands deck, would they find anything inconsistent?
+- [ ] Have we been accurate about our current state, or are we projecting an aspiration?
+
+---
+
+## Key Questions for Narrative
+
+- "Could a new employee explain to a friend why our company exists? What would they say?"
+- "What do we tell investors about our strategy? What do we tell employees? Are these the same?"
+- "If a journalist asked our team members to describe the company independently, what would they say?"
+- "When did we last update our 'why we exist' story? Is it still true?"
+- "What's the hardest question we'd get from each audience? Do we have an honest answer?"
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Different departments describe the company mission differently
+- Investor narrative emphasizes growth; employee narrative emphasizes stability (or vice versa)
+- All-hands presentations are mostly slides, mostly one-way
+- Q&A questions are screened or deflected
+- Bad news reaches employees through Slack rumors before leadership communication
+- Careers page describes a culture that employees don't recognize
+
+## Integration with Other C-Suite Roles
+
+| When... | Work with... | To... |
+|---------|-------------|-------|
+| Investor update prep | CFO | Align financial narrative with company narrative |
+| Reorg or leadership change | CHRO + CEO | Sequence: employees first, then external |
+| Product pivot | CPO | Align customer communication with investor story |
+| Culture change | Culture Architect | Ensure internal story is consistent with external employer brand |
+| M&A or partnership | CEO + COO | Control information flow, prevent narrative leaks |
+| Crisis | All C-suite | Single voice, consistent story, internal first |
+
+## Detailed References
+- `references/narrative-frameworks.md` — Storytelling structures, founder narrative, bad news delivery, all-hands templates
+- `templates/all-hands-template.md` — All-hands presentation template