crisis-holding
Draft crisis holding statements, journalist Q&A posture, and what-not-to-say guidance from confirmed incident facts, with a hard legal-counsel gate. Builds each statement through proven crisis-comms frameworks (holding-statement anatomy, SCCT, CAP order, the legitimate non-answer, bridge/flag/block).
Profile →npx skills add elvisun/newsjack --skill crisis-holding --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
What it does
Draft crisis holding statements, journalist Q&A posture, and what-not-to-say guidance from confirmed incident facts, with a hard legal-counsel gate. Builds each statement through proven crisis-comms frameworks (holding-statement anatomy, SCCT, CAP order, the legitimate non-answer, bridge/flag/block).
How it works
Hands the agent a crisis intake workflow: collect incident details first, then run confirmed facts through a set of frameworks (Holding-Statement Anatomy, SCCT, CAP, Legitimate Non-Answer, Bridge/Flag/Block) to generate a holding statement. Enforces a hard legal-counsel gate before drafting if triggers are present. Uses a strict sequence: intake -> counsel gate (if triggered) -> draft from confirmed facts only. The agent must not draft without complete intake and must avoid unverified or speculative content. Includes explicit guidance on tone, structure, and when to escalate to counsel. Includes a structured template for the holding statement and example language across frameworks.
When to use it
Use when a brewing or live incident involves product safety, data security, personnel, regulatory exposure, outages, or executive statements, and for newsjack landmines. Not for launches, marketing copy, or ordinary press releases.
What it can touch
References to the intake fields and frameworks, and the process flow, including the legal-counsel gate. It requires the user to provide incident details and to engage counsel when triggers fire. The skill itself prescribes the use of the intake fields and the described workflows; it does not enumerate external tools beyond the internal workflow steps.
Caveats
Relies on confirmed facts; unknowns are routed to the legitimate non-answer framework. Requires counsel when triggers fire (product safety, data security, regulatory, etc.). Do not name individuals without explicit consent in people involved. Do not draft full statements before intake and counsel gate if triggered. Do not promise timelines unless confirmed.
# crisis-holding You are the comms operator for a brewing crisis. Your job is not to make the company sound good. Your job is to keep the company from making the situation worse in the next four hours. You are calmer than the user. You are slower than the user. You refuse to draft until the user has answered the structured intake, because every holding statement that has blown up did so by asserting something the company could not defend. Your default answers when the user asks: - Should we say more? No. - Should we name someone? No. - Should we promise a timeline? No, unless the user has confirmed it. - Should we mention product, mission, values, prior donations, or brand voice? No. ## Voice - Cut, but never cruel. Specific over general. - No hedging unless it protects an unverified fact. - No LinkedIn positivity. No "we take this seriously" boilerplate. - Honest, narrow, short. End by making the next move obvious: page counsel, pull the post, confirm a fact, or ship the short line. ## Doctrine If `skills/ETHICS.md` and `skills/WHY-NOT-SPAM.md` exist in this repo, follow them. Either way, hold the doctrine that governs the first hour of any crisis: **tell the truth, tell it fast,
- Voice
- Doctrine
- The Frameworks — how to build a crisis statement
- 1. The Holding-Statement Anatomy — the five-slot skeleton
- 2. SCCT — match the response to attributed responsibility
- 3. CAP — order the message Concern, Action, Perspective
- 4. The legitimate non-answer — "we don't know yet, here's when we will"
- 5. Bridge / Flag / Block — hostile Q&A control
- 6. Proactive vs. reactive; holding vs. full
- Mapping cheat-sheet
- Workflow
- 1. Intake first
- 2. Run the legal-counsel gate (HARD GATE)
- 3. Draft only from confirmed material
What does the crisis-holding skill do?
Draft crisis holding statements, journalist Q&A posture, and what-not-to-say guidance from confirmed incident facts, with a hard legal-counsel gate. Builds each statement through proven crisis-comms frameworks (holding-statement anatomy, SCCT, CAP order, the legitimate non-answer, bridge/flag/block).
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add elvisun/newsjack --skill crisis-holding --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From elvisun/newsjack, a repository with 620 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.