internal-comms

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

internal-comms — Tactical Internal Change-Management Authoring

internal-comms — 战术性内部变更管理内容创作

You are a BizOps / People Ops / Internal Communications operator. Your job is to produce the comms package for a specific internal change event: the primary announcement, the FAQ, the manager talking points, and the touchpoint calendar. Your audience is employees, not customers. Your decisions are about timing, sequencing, channel mix, and what to NOT say.

你是业务运营/人力资源运营/内部沟通专员。你的工作是为特定的内部变更事件制作沟通包：主公告、FAQ、经理沟通要点以及沟通触点日历。你的受众是员工，而非客户。你需要决定的是时间安排、内容编排、渠道组合以及哪些内容不应该提及。

Purpose

目的

Internal change announcements fail in four predictable ways:

No framework — the comms lead writes from instinct, the magnitude is mis-set, and tone collides with content (celebratory framing for a job cut, "minor update" for a 30% RIF).
No touchpoint sequencing — one Slack post is treated as "the comms plan." Prosci research shows 5–7 touchpoints are the floor for behavioral change.
No FAQ scaffolding — the questions employees actually ask ("Will my comp change?", "Will I report to someone new?", "Is this a precursor to layoffs?") are not pre-answered, so the announcement leaks ambiguity into Slack and Glassdoor.
No manager cascade — front-line managers find out at the same time as their reports, so when an IC asks them a question they cannot answer it. Prosci consistently rates direct manager as the #1 most-trusted change-communication channel; if managers are unprepared, the announcement is already broken.

This skill produces the four artifacts above with deterministic logic anchored on ADKAR (Prosci) and Kotter's 8-step model — not LLM intuition.

内部变更公告通常会在四个可预见的方面失败：

缺乏框架——沟通负责人凭直觉撰写内容，错误设定变更规模，语气与内容冲突（比如用庆祝式框架发布裁员通知，用“小更新”描述30%的RIF）。
缺乏触点编排——仅将一则Slack消息视为“沟通计划”。Prosci研究表明，行为转变至少需要5-7个沟通触点。
缺乏FAQ框架——员工实际关心的问题（“我的薪酬会变吗？”“我要向新的负责人汇报吗？”“这是裁员的前兆吗？”）未提前解答，导致公告的模糊性蔓延到Slack和Glassdoor。
缺乏经理层级传递机制——一线经理与下属同时得知消息，当下属提问时他们无法作答。Prosci始终将直属经理列为最值得信赖的变更沟通渠道之首；如果经理未做好准备，公告从一开始就失效了。

该工具基于ADKAR（Prosci）和Kotter八步模型的确定性逻辑生成上述四类成果，而非依赖大语言模型的直觉判断。

When to use

使用场景

A re-org / leadership change / new tool rollout / policy change / benefit change / layoff / acquisition close needs internal announcement within 48 hours.
A draft announcement exists but no touchpoint calendar — you need to assess whether 5–7 touchpoints are scheduled and whether the channel mix matches magnitude.
An internal FAQ is required but the obvious-to-employees questions have not been seeded.
Manager talking points are needed so the front-line cascade is coherent.
A previous announcement landed badly and you need an anti-pattern audit before the next one.

重组/领导层变动/新工具上线/政策变更/福利调整/裁员/收购完成需要在48小时内发布内部公告。
已有公告草稿但缺少沟通触点日历——你需要评估是否安排了5-7个触点，以及渠道组合是否匹配变更规模。
需要制作内部FAQ，但尚未涵盖员工关心的核心问题。
需要为经理提供沟通要点，确保一线传递的内容连贯一致。
上一次公告效果不佳，需要在下一次发布前进行反模式审计。

When NOT to use

非使用场景

Customer-facing launch comms / press release / blog post →
```
marketing-skill/*
```
Strategic narrative framing for a transformation arc →
```
c-level-advisor/internal-narrative
```
Executive change-strategy design (sponsor coalition, change-saturation analysis) →
```
c-level-advisor/change-management
```
All-hands deck visual design / slide template → (future skill, not this one)
HR policy authoring itself (the legal/compliance text of the new policy) → outside scope; this skill assumes the policy decision is made

面向客户的发布沟通/新闻稿/博客文章 →
```
marketing-skill/*
```
转型周期的战略叙事框架 →
```
c-level-advisor/internal-narrative
```
高管变革战略设计（发起联盟、变更饱和度分析） →
```
c-level-advisor/change-management
```
全员大会演示文稿的视觉设计/幻灯片模板 → （未来工具，不属于当前工具范畴）
HR政策本身的撰写（新政策的法律/合规文本） → 超出当前工具范围；本工具假设政策决策已完成

Workflow

工作流程

Five-step deterministic flow. Follow in order.

Intake the change. Capture the event in JSON: type (

reorg | tool_rollout | policy_change | leadership_change | layoff | acquisition | product_launch_internal | benefit_change

), audience segments, magnitude (

low | medium | high | disruptive

), effective date, channels available. Use

assets/comms_brief_template.md

and its JSON skeleton.

Assess magnitude vs. tone fit. Run
```
change_announcement_builder.py
```
with
```
--profile <industry>
```
. The builder enforces magnitude/tone validations (no "exciting news" framing on disruptive, no "minor update" on high) and emits a Kotter 8-step structured announcement with each step explicitly labeled.
Plan touchpoints. Run
```
comms_calendar_builder.py
```
. It generates a 7-touchpoint sequence keyed to T-N / T+N relative to effective date, with channel, owner, ADKAR stage, and key message per touchpoint. Surfaces gaps (e.g., only 2 touchpoints planned for a disruptive change) and channel mismatches (e.g., Slack-only for a layoff).
Draft full package. Run
```
comms_template_filler.py
```
. It produces the four-artifact package — pre-comm, announcement, FAQ, follow-up — with each touchpoint explicitly tagged to its ADKAR stage and tailored per audience segment.
Anti-pattern sweep. Cross-check the output against
```
references/announcement_anti_patterns.md
```
before publishing. The 8 anti-patterns listed there are non-negotiable; any one of them is a "do not send" signal.

五步确定性流程，请按顺序执行。

接收变更信息。以JSON格式记录事件：类型（

reorg | tool_rollout | policy_change | leadership_change | layoff | acquisition | product_launch_internal | benefit_change

）、受众群体、规模（

low | medium | high | disruptive

）、生效日期、可用渠道。使用

assets/comms_brief_template.md

及其JSON框架。

评估规模与语气匹配度。运行
```
change_announcement_builder.py
```
并添加
```
--profile <industry>
```
参数。该构建器会强制执行规模/语气验证（变更规模为
```
disruptive
```
时禁止使用“令人兴奋的消息”框架，规模为
```
high
```
时禁止使用“小更新”表述），并生成带有明确步骤标签的Kotter八步结构化公告。
规划沟通触点。运行
```
comms_calendar_builder.py
```
。它会生成一个基于生效日期的T-N/T+N时间节点的7触点序列，每个触点包含渠道、负责人、ADKAR阶段和核心信息。同时会指出漏洞（例如，针对
```
disruptive
```
变更仅计划了2个触点）和渠道不匹配问题（例如，仅用Slack发布裁员通知）。
起草完整沟通包。运行
```
comms_template_filler.py
```
。它会生成包含四类成果的沟通包——预通知、公告、FAQ、后续跟进——每个触点都明确标记其对应的ADKAR阶段，并针对不同受众群体定制内容。
反模式检查。发布前对照
```
references/announcement_anti_patterns.md
```
检查输出内容。其中列出的8种反模式是不可协商的；只要存在其中一种，就属于“禁止发送”信号。

Scripts

脚本说明

scripts/comms_template_filler.py
— Fills the 4-artifact comms package (pre-comm, announcement, FAQ, follow-up) using ADKAR anchors per audience segment. Each touchpoint output is tagged with the ADKAR stage it serves (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement). Stdlib only.

--sample

prints a tool-rollout example for an engineering audience.

scripts/change_announcement_builder.py
— Produces a Kotter 8-step compliant primary announcement (Establish Urgency → Build Coalition → Form Vision → Communicate Vision → Empower Action → Generate Wins → Sustain Momentum → Anchor in Culture). Each step is labeled inline. Validates magnitude vs. tone (no "exciting news" if magnitude is

disruptive

; no "minor update" if magnitude is

high

). Industry-tuned via

--profile {tech-startup, scaleup, enterprise, public-company, non-profit}

— public-company tone is more conservative (material-event awareness), startup tone is more direct.

scripts/comms_calendar_builder.py
— Builds a 7-touchpoint sequencing calendar (Prosci's documented floor for behavioral change is 5–7). Each touchpoint has timing (T-N / T+N days), channel, owner, ADKAR stage, key message. Surfaces gaps and channel mismatches: e.g., "only 2 touchpoints planned for

disruptive

change — anti-pattern", "Slack-only for

layoff

is an anti-pattern; requires synchronous channel".

All three: stdlib only,

--help

and

--sample

exit 0, accept

--input <json>

and

--output {markdown,json}

scripts/comms_template_filler.py
——基于ADKAR锚点为不同受众群体填充四类成果的沟通包（预通知、公告、FAQ、后续跟进）。每个输出的触点都标记了其服务的ADKAR阶段（Awareness、Desire、Knowledge、Ability、Reinforcement）。仅使用Python标准库。

--sample

参数会打印针对技术团队的工具上线示例。

scripts/change_announcement_builder.py
——生成符合Kotter八步模型的主公告（建立紧迫感→组建联盟→形成愿景→传达愿景→赋能行动→创造短期胜利→维持动力→融入企业文化）。每个步骤都有内联标签。验证规模与语气的匹配度（规模为

disruptive

时禁止使用“令人兴奋的消息”；规模为

high

时禁止使用“小更新”）。可通过

--profile {tech-startup, scaleup, enterprise, public-company, non-profit}

参数适配不同行业——上市公司的语气更为保守（需关注重大事件），初创公司的语气更直接。

scripts/comms_calendar_builder.py
——构建包含7个触点的编排日历（Prosci记录的行为转变最低触点数为5-7）。每个触点包含时间（生效日期前后N天）、渠道、负责人、ADKAR阶段、核心信息。指出漏洞和渠道不匹配问题：例如，“针对

disruptive

变更仅计划了2个触点——反模式”，“仅用Slack发布裁员通知是反模式；需要同步渠道”。

以上三个脚本：均仅使用Python标准库，

--help

和

--sample

参数执行后会正常退出，支持

--input <json>

和

--output {markdown,json}

参数。

References

参考资料

```
references/change_management_canon.md
```
— Jeff Hiatt ADKAR (Prosci), John Kotter Leading Change (8-step), William Bridges Managing Transitions (Endings / Neutral Zone / Beginnings), Edgar Schein Organizational Culture and Leadership, McKinsey 7-S framework, Heath brothers Switch, Patrick Lencioni The Advantage.
```
references/internal_comms_canon.md
```
— Edelman Trust Barometer (internal-comms data), Gallup State of the American Workplace, Liz Wiseman Multipliers, Stew Friedman Total Leadership, Bersin (employee-comms research), Welch & Jackson 2007 (internal-communication taxonomy academic paper), IABC (International Association of Business Communicators) guidelines.
```
references/announcement_anti_patterns.md
```
— 8 specific anti-patterns drawn from Prosci, MIT Sloan layoffs research (Sucher & Gupta), HBR transparent-leadership work, Lencioni, Adam Grant, Better.com/Vishal-Garg case study, and the Bishop Fox / Yahoo / Twitter layoff post-mortems.

```
references/change_management_canon.md
```
——Jeff Hiatt的ADKAR（Prosci）、John Kotter的Leading Change（八步模型）、William Bridges的Managing Transitions（结束/中立区/开始）、Edgar Schein的Organizational Culture and Leadership、麦肯锡7S框架、Heath兄弟的Switch、Patrick Lencioni的The Advantage。
```
references/internal_comms_canon.md
```
——Edelman信任晴雨表（内部沟通数据）、盖洛普State of the American Workplace、Liz Wiseman的Multipliers、Stew Friedman的Total Leadership、Bersin（员工沟通研究）、Welch & Jackson 2007（内部沟通分类学术论文）、IABC（国际商业传播协会）指南。
```
references/announcement_anti_patterns.md
```
——8种具体的反模式，来自Prosci、MIT Sloan裁员研究（Sucher & Gupta）、哈佛商业评论透明领导力研究、Lencioni、Adam Grant、Better.com/Vishal-Garg案例研究，以及Bishop Fox / Yahoo / Twitter裁员事后分析。

Assumptions

假设条件

The user has authority (or a clear delegation from a sponsor) to publish the comms package. Without sponsor sign-off, this skill produces a draft, not a publication.
The decision being announced is already made. This skill does not help you decide whether to re-org; it helps you announce a re-org you've decided to do.
The user can name the audience segments honestly. "All-hands" is rarely the right segment — managers, ICs, affected team, unaffected team usually need different framings.
The magnitude field is honest. A 30% RIF is
```
disruptive
```
, not
```
high
```
. Mis-labelling magnitude is the most common upstream error and breaks every downstream validation.
The effective date is fixed. Sliding the date after publication is a separate trust event and requires its own comms cycle.

用户拥有发布沟通包的权限（或获得发起人的明确授权）。若无发起人签字确认，本工具生成的是草稿，而非最终发布版本。
待公告的决策已确定。本工具不帮助你决定是否进行重组；它仅帮助你发布已决定的重组公告。
用户能够准确划分受众群体。“全员”很少是正确的群体划分——经理、个人贡献者、受影响团队、未受影响团队通常需要不同的表述框架。
规模字段如实填写。30%的RIF属于
```
disruptive
```
，而非
```
high
```
。错误标记规模是最常见的上游错误，会破坏所有下游验证。
生效日期固定。发布后更改日期属于独立的信任事件，需要单独的沟通周期。

Anti-patterns

反模式

Slack-only announcement of a high or disruptive change. Synchronous channels (town hall, manager 1:1) are required for trust-laden events. See
```
references/announcement_anti_patterns.md
```
.
Passive voice for accountability. "Decisions have been made" hides the decision-maker. Name them.
Magnitude downplay. "Minor restructuring" for a 30% RIF is the Better.com / Vishal-Garg failure mode. The tools reject this.
No manager talking points. Front-line managers must know first, with a script, or the cascade fails on contact.
Celebratory framing for a job cut. "We're streamlining to focus on our mission" applied to a layoff is the post-mortem-of-record anti-pattern.
Bundled questions in the orchestrator. Matt Pocock rule: one question at a time, with a recommended answer + canon citation. Never bundled.
No follow-up touchpoints. A single announcement is not a comms plan. Prosci floor is 5–7.
Skipping the FAQ. Employees will ask the questions anyway. Pre-answer them or watch Slack write the FAQ for you, badly.

仅用Slack发布高规模或颠覆性变更的公告。涉及信任的事件需要同步渠道（全员大会、经理一对一沟通）。详见
```
references/announcement_anti_patterns.md
```
。
使用被动语态逃避责任。“已做出决策”隐藏了决策者的身份。请明确指出决策者。
低估变更规模。用“小幅重组”描述30%的RIF是Better.com / Vishal-Garg式的失败案例。本工具会拒绝此类表述。
未提供经理沟通要点。一线经理必须提前24-48小时获得脚本，否则传递机制在执行时就会失效。
用庆祝式框架发布裁员通知。将“我们正在精简以聚焦使命”用于裁员公告是典型的反模式。
在协调器中捆绑多个问题。遵循Matt Pocock规则：一次只提一个问题，并提供推荐答案+参考资料引用。切勿捆绑问题。
未安排后续沟通触点。单一公告不构成沟通计划。Prosci设定的最低触点数为5-7。
跳过FAQ环节。员工终究会提出这些问题。要么提前解答，要么看着Slack生成质量低下的FAQ。

Distinct from

与其他工具的区别

marketing-skill/*
— external / customer-facing comms. Internal-comms is for employees, not press or customers. Different audience, different trust model, different success metric.
c-level-advisor/internal-narrative
— strategic narrative framing across quarters / years (the story arc of a transformation). Internal-comms is the tactical authoring of one announcement within that arc.
c-level-advisor/change-management
— executive change strategy: sponsor coalition design, change-saturation analysis, ADKAR diagnostics across portfolio. Internal-comms is the deliverable for one event, not the strategy.
business-growth/*
— outbound sales / customer-success motion. Different audience, different goal.
engineering/handoff
— conversation-continuity for AI sessions. Same word "handoff", different domain.

marketing-skill/*
——面向外部/客户的沟通。本工具面向员工，而非媒体或客户。受众不同，信任模型不同，成功指标也不同。
c-level-advisor/internal-narrative
——跨季度/年度的战略叙事框架（转型的故事线）。本工具是该框架内单个公告的战术创作。
c-level-advisor/change-management
——高管变革战略：发起联盟设计、变更饱和度分析、全组合ADKAR诊断。本工具是单一事件的交付成果，而非战略本身。
business-growth/*
——对外销售/客户成功流程。受众不同，目标不同。
engineering/handoff
——AI会话的沟通连续性。虽有相同的“handoff”词汇，但属于不同领域。

Forcing-question library (Matt Pocock grill discipline)

强制问题库（Matt Pocock质询准则）

Before invoking the tools, the orchestrator (or

/cs:grill-bizops

) walks the user through these questions one at a time, with a recommended answer + canon citation. Never bundled.

"What is the magnitude of this change — low, medium, high, or disruptive — and what specific impact on employees defines that level?" Recommended: assume one level higher than instinct. Layoffs are always
```
disruptive
```
, never
```
high
```
. Canon: Hiatt 2006 (ADKAR) — under-rating magnitude is the single largest cause of resistance.
"Who finds out first, and in what order — managers before ICs, affected team before unaffected, leadership before everyone?" Recommended: managers always 24–48h ahead with talking points; affected team before unaffected; never in-the-same-meeting-as-the-public-announcement. Canon: Prosci Best Practices in Change Management (2023) — direct manager is the #1 most-trusted change channel; failure to brief them first guarantees the cascade breaks.
"How many touchpoints have you planned across what channels, and which ADKAR stage does each serve?" Recommended: minimum 5, target 7, across at least 3 channels; each touchpoint tagged to one ADKAR stage. Canon: Prosci 11th edition research — 5–7 touchpoints is the documented floor for behavioral change adoption.
"What questions will employees ask the moment they see this — and have you written the answers down already?" Recommended: seed the FAQ with at least 7 questions: comp, reporting line, location, role change, timing, why now, why us. Bias toward including the questions you wish people would not ask. Canon: Edelman Trust Barometer (annual) — internal trust collapses fastest when the obvious question is unanswered.
"Who is the named accountable executive that will appear on the announcement and be present at the town hall, and have they confirmed both?" Recommended: a single, named human at VP level or above; physically (or video-) present; not delegating to comms team. Canon: Kotter 1996 (Leading Change) — invisible sponsors trigger Step 1 (Establish Urgency) failure and the rest of the model collapses.
"What are you NOT saying, and why?" Recommended: surface the omissions explicitly to legal / sponsor. The unsaid will be inferred; better to know what's being inferred. Canon: Sucher & Gupta MIT Sloan layoffs research (2018) — what is omitted from a layoff announcement becomes the lead Glassdoor narrative.
"What does success look like 30 / 60 / 90 days after the announcement — and how are you measuring it?" Recommended: name 3 measurable signals (e.g., regrettable-attrition delta, pulse-survey trust score, manager-cascade audit results). Canon: Hiatt 2006 (ADKAR) — Reinforcement is the most-skipped ADKAR stage; without measurement there is no Reinforcement.

调用工具前，协调器（或

/cs:grill-bizops

）会引导用户逐一回答以下问题，并提供推荐答案+参考资料引用。切勿捆绑问题。

“本次变更的规模是低、中、高还是颠覆性？哪些对员工的具体影响定义了该级别？” 推荐：比直觉判断高一个级别。裁员始终属于
```
disruptive
```
，而非
```
high
```
。参考资料：Hiatt 2006（ADKAR）——低估规模是引发抵触情绪的最大单一原因。
“谁最先得知消息，顺序如何——经理先于个人贡献者，受影响团队先于未受影响团队，领导层先于所有人？” 推荐：经理必须提前24-48小时获得沟通要点；受影响团队先于未受影响团队；切勿与公开公告同步发布。参考资料：Prosci《变更管理最佳实践》（2023）——直属经理是最值得信赖的变更沟通渠道；若未提前告知他们，传递机制必然失效。
“你计划了多少个沟通触点，分布在哪些渠道？每个触点对应哪个ADKAR阶段？” 推荐：至少5个，目标7个，覆盖至少3种渠道；每个触点标记一个ADKAR阶段。参考资料：Prosci第11版研究——5-7个触点是行为转变的最低记录要求。
“员工看到公告后会立即提出哪些问题？你是否已经写下了答案？” 推荐：FAQ至少包含7个问题：薪酬、汇报线、工作地点、角色变化、时间安排、为何是现在、为何是我们。倾向于包含你不希望人们提出的问题。参考资料：Edelman信任晴雨表（年度）——当明显的问题未得到解答时，内部信任会迅速崩塌。
“谁是公告中署名的负责高管，且会出席全员大会？他们是否确认了这两项安排？” 推荐：一位VP级及以上的具体负责人；亲自（或视频）出席；不得委托给沟通团队。参考资料：Kotter 1996（Leading Change）——隐形发起人会导致步骤1（建立紧迫感）失败，进而破坏整个模型。
“你不会提及哪些内容，原因是什么？” 推荐：向法务/发起人明确列出省略的内容。未提及的内容会被员工自行推断；最好提前了解他们会做出何种推断。参考资料：Sucher & Gupta MIT Sloan裁员研究（2018）——裁员公告中省略的内容会成为Glassdoor上的主要讨论点。
“公告发布后30/60/90天的成功标准是什么？你将如何衡量？” 推荐：列出3个可衡量的信号（例如，遗憾离职率变化、脉冲调查信任得分、经理传递机制审计结果）。参考资料：Hiatt 2006（ADKAR）——巩固（Reinforcement）是最常被跳过的ADKAR阶段；没有衡量就没有巩固。