BytesAgain is a curated directory of 60,000+ AI agent skills from ClawHub, GitHub, LobeHub, and Dify. Search skills by keyword in 7 languages, browse by role (developer, creator, trader, marketer) or by use case.

How do I find AI skills on BytesAgain?

Use the search bar on BytesAgain.com to search by keyword in 7 languages. You can also browse by role (developer, creator, trader, marketer) or by use case. Each skill shows install instructions for Claude, Cursor, OpenClaw, Continue, and more.

Yes, BytesAgain is completely free. No registration required for searching skills. The MCP API is also free with rate limits.

Does BytesAgain have an API for AI agents?

Yes! BytesAgain provides a free MCP SSE endpoint at /api/mcp/sse for AI agents, plus a REST API at /api/mcp?action=search&q= . No authentication needed.

Can I request a new AI skill on BytesAgain?

Yes! Visit the Requests page on BytesAgain.com to submit a skill request. Your request will be visible to the community and notified to the site admin.

🦀 ClawHub

Black Swan Discovery

by @quochungto

Identify the hidden unknowns that will determine whether your negotiation succeeds or fails before you ever make an offer. Use when someone asks "why is my c...

Versionv1.0.0

#clawhub

⚡ When to Use

Trigger	Action
This skill applies when:
- A prospect or counterpart is behaving in ways that seem irrational — rejecting good offers, raising unrelated objections, going silent, or escalating without explanation
- A deal has stalled and you cannot diagnose why
- You are entering a negotiation where the counterpart's real priorities, constraints, or motivations are unclear
- You have received a surprising no after what felt like a strong offer
- You want to map what leverage you actually have before making your next move
- You are rebuilding a previously failed or contentious negotiation
The core principle: apparent irrationality is almost always a signal, not a fact. When a counterpart behaves in ways that do not make sense given what you know, they are usually operating on information, constraints, or motivations you do not yet have. The goal of this skill is to surface those unknown unknowns — called "Black Swans" in negotiation practice — so you can address them directly rather than responding to symptoms.
Black Swans are unknown unknowns — pieces of information whose existence you are not even aware of. This is different from known unknowns (questions you know you need to answer). A known unknown is "I don't know what their budget is" — you can ask about it directly. An unknown unknown is an undisclosed constraint, hidden relationship, or worldview difference that you do not yet know to ask about. Known unknowns can be resolved with direct questions. Unknown unknowns require a fundamentally different approach: instead of asking about what you know you don't know, you create conditions for unexpected information to surface — through face time, active listening, and watching for behaviors that don't make sense under your current model. These are the deal-killers that blindside experienced negotiators who are otherwise well-prepared.
Before starting, confirm you have:
- A description of the negotiation situation and what you want
- At least some observation of counterpart behavior — ideally including something that seemed puzzling or out of proportion
- A rough sense of who else might be involved beyond the person you are talking to
---

💡 Examples

Example 1: The Korean MBA Student and the Ex-Boss

Scenario: A Korean MBA student needs a letter of recommendation from a former employer who has become distant and difficult to reach. The student cannot understand why the ex-boss is unresponsive. The relationship had been positive during employment.

Trigger: "My former boss agreed to write a recommendation but keeps delaying. We haven't worked together in two years. I can't figure out what's going on."

Process:

Signal audit: Agreement followed by prolonged inaction despite reminders. Behavior is inconsistent with a simple yes.

Category 1 hypothesis: The ex-boss may assume that helping a former employee makes sense only if the relationship has ongoing value — a networking norm the student has not activated.

Category 2 hypothesis: The ex-boss may have a time constraint (travel, project deadline) that they are too embarrassed to name after already agreeing.

Category 3 hypothesis (discovered via investigation): The ex-boss may need something in return — specifically, a connection to the MBA program's network or a way to be associated with the student's future success. The letter is not just a favor; it is an implicit exchange the student has not acknowledged.

Black Swans discovered: (1) Worldview mismatch — the ex-boss operates on implicit reciprocity norms the student has not addressed; (2) Hidden agenda — the ex-boss wants to be positioned as a champion in the MBA community, not just a reference provider. When the student acknowledged both (offered to introduce the ex-boss to program contacts and framed the letter as a mutual professional visibility opportunity), the letter arrived within a week.

Key leverage deployed: Normative (the ex-boss had agreed and his professional reputation as a mentor was at stake) and Positive (access to MBA network contacts).

Example 2: Stalled Enterprise Sales Deal

Scenario: A SaaS company's sales rep has been in a six-month sales cycle with a VP of Operations at a mid-size logistics company. The deal has gone through legal review, the technical evaluation was positive, and the VP has expressed enthusiasm in every conversation. But the final approval keeps getting pushed.

Trigger: "This deal should have closed three months ago. The champion loves the product, legal is done, pricing is agreed. Every time I ask about timing, she says 'soon' but nothing happens."

Process:

Signal audit: Sustained enthusiasm combined with inability to execute. Gap between stated support and ability to close. Timing questions deflected with vague answers.

Category 2 hypothesis (highest priority): Hidden budget constraint — the VP may not have authorization for this deal size and has been hoping to resolve that internally without disclosing it.

Category 2 secondary hypothesis: There is a competing internal priority consuming the executive sponsor's attention and political capital.

Category 3 hypothesis: The VP needs visible executive buy-in from her own boss before committing — either for political protection or because the actual decision-maker is above her.

Investigation questions designed: 1. "What does the approval process look like from here on your end?" (surfaces authority constraint without accusation) 2. "What would need to be true for this to move in the next thirty days?" (opens space for constraint disclosure) 3. "Who else in your organization would want to weigh in on a decision like this?" (surfaces undisclosed stakeholder)

Outcome: Question 3 revealed a CFO who had budget veto authority and had not been introduced into the process. The VP had been trying to shield the deal from CFO scrutiny but could not close without his approval. Once the sales rep offered to support the VP in presenting the ROI case to the CFO directly, the deal closed within three weeks.

Example 3: Partnership Negotiation Breakdown

Scenario: A startup founder is negotiating a distribution partnership with a larger company. Initial conversations were extremely positive, but after a terms sheet was sent, communication became formal and slow. The other party's lead negotiator has been replaced by someone the founder has never met.

Trigger: "Everything was going great, then we sent the terms and it all went cold. Now there's a new person involved who seems hostile for no reason. I don't understand what changed."

Process:

Signal audit: Sudden shift from warmth to formality after terms were sent; personnel change; new representative displays hostility without stated cause.

Category 1 hypothesis: The terms sheet may have violated an unstated norm in how the other company handles formal proposals — perhaps they expected a different structure, or the founder went around the appropriate channel.

Category 3 hypothesis (highest priority): The original champion may have been moved off the deal for internal reasons, and the new representative has a mandate or a personal motivation to renegotiate from a lower position.

Category 3 secondary: The new representative may have been assigned specifically because the deal was seen internally as unfavorable, and the warmth in early conversations was not accurately representing the other organization's actual position.

Leverage mapped:

Positive: Limited — the deal terms are now under review and the new representative has not expressed the same enthusiasm.

Normative: High — the prior representative made specific positive statements about deal structure that are on record. The new representative is bound by what was discussed.

Negative: Moderate — the startup has alternative distribution options that can be made more visible.

Investigation questions designed: 1. "Help me understand how this differs from what you typically look for in a partnership arrangement." (tests worldview mismatch) 2. "What are the most important factors for your team in how this is structured?" (resets the conversation to their priorities without the previous framing) 3. "What would make this work better from your perspective?" (opens space for the new representative to state their actual mandate)

View on ClawHub

TERMINAL

clawhub install bookforge-black-swan-discovery