What it does
A holding statement is what an election office says in the first thirty minutes of a developing situation, before all the facts are in. Its whole job is to be accurate, calm, and non-committal in the right places: state only what's confirmed, acknowledge what isn't known yet, describe the concrete steps under way, and promise a next update. This is a method-dominant task (there's no statute to cite, just hard-won judgment about what *not* to say), so the skill ships as jurisdiction-agnostic guidance, single-shot.
Where it earns its place
In a developing situation the worst outcomes come from saying too much, too soon, or too confidently. Officials often have minutes, not hours, and a single over-stated sentence becomes the story. This skill encodes the discipline of a seasoned communications lead: confirm-only facts, name the uncertainty, state the next update time. It is fast, repeatable, and calm under pressure.
The two halves
The craft, and your facts
How to approach the task and word it, the way an election expert would.
- Structure the document and its steps
- Plain language a voter can act on
- Flag genuine uncertainty, never smooth it over
- Run the checks before a human sees it
Drafted by AI, reviewed by an expert
The facts it must be right about: found from real sources, and verified by you.
- The skill searches reputable sources for each one
- It shows you the value and the source to confirm
- Nothing is used until you verify it
- Where it finds nothing, it asks you
Researched, then verified by you
The package
What’s in the folder
examples/ example-scanner-delay.mdSKILL.mdThe craft
SKILL.md
The thin, jurisdiction-agnostic instructions — the whole skill. It tells the model how to structure and word the task, and to ask you for facts rather than invent them. Read it before you trust it.
---
name: press-holding-statement
description: Draft a calm, accurate holding statement for a developing election situation before all the facts are in. Use when an election official needs a short public statement about an unfolding incident such as an equipment problem, a delay, or a rumor. States only what is confirmed, names what is not yet known, and avoids speculation or over-promising. Works in any jurisdiction.
---
# Press holding statement
You help an election official draft a holding statement for a developing
situation: the calm, accurate few sentences the office puts out before all the
facts are in. The goal is to be truthful, steady, and to buy time, without
speculating, over-promising, or creating a new story.
This is a **method-dominant** task. There is usually no statute to cite; the
value is the discipline. It is jurisdiction-agnostic. The live, situational facts
(what is happening right now) always come from the official. Where a *standing*
background claim would help (a security practice, a routine procedure), you do not
assert it from memory: you research whether it is documented for this jurisdiction
and show the official the source to confirm before it goes in.
## Before you draft
1. **Separate confirmed from unconfirmed.** Decide for each fact whether it is
*known*, or merely suspected/reported/feared. Only confirmed facts go in as
facts. **If the user has not separated the two, do not guess. Ask.** One
question usually unlocks the whole statement, e.g. *"Is there an actual
confirmed problem, or only a rumor/allegation with no confirmed incident behind
it?"* The honest statement often points in opposite directions depending on the
answer.
2. **Identify the audience and channel.** A statement for press, for a website
banner, and for a social post differ in length and tone. Default to something
that works as a short written statement.
3. **Find the one thing the public most needs to know** to stay safe, keep
voting, or stop spreading a rumor.
## Approach: the four moves of a holding statement
1. **State what is known**, plainly and only what's confirmed. One or two
sentences.
2. **Acknowledge what is not yet known**, without speculating about it. "We do
not yet have confirmation of X and will not speculate" is stronger than a
guess.
3. **Say what the office is doing**, the concrete, in-progress steps. This is
what reassures people: competence in motion, not promises.
4. **Commit to a next update**, a time or a trigger ("by 7pm" or "as soon as we
have confirmed information"). This is what buys you the time.
**When almost nothing is confirmed:** say very little, well. A valid holding
statement can be three sentences: we are aware of [the concern, in neutral
words]; at this time we have no confirmed information indicating [the feared
outcome]; we will say so directly if that changes, and will update by [time].
Resist the urge to pad it to feel complete.
## Discipline (what makes it land)
- **Never speculate about cause.** Not "likely a printer issue," not "we believe
it was isolated." If you don't know, you don't know.
- **Never promise an outcome** you don't control ("all affected voters will be
able to vote" before you've confirmed how).
- **Never claim the problem is already resolved** ("we've identified and fixed
it") unless the user has confirmed resolution. Describing fix work *in progress*
is fine; declaring it done is an outcome you may not control.
- **Never attribute a confirmation to a third party** ("the FBI / Secretary of
State confirmed no breach") unless the user gives you that on the record.
- **Don't repeat the rumor to deny it** in a way that amplifies it. Concretely: do
not reuse the rumor's loaded words ("hacked," "deleted," "rigged," "thrown out")
even inside a denial. Name the underlying concern in neutral terms (e.g.
"questions about whether votes are affected") and answer *that*.
- **No blame, no defensiveness, no jargon.** Short sentences. A worried person
reads at a lower grade level than usual.
- **Reassure on the franchise** where true: if people can still vote, say how,
early and clearly.
### When the user pushes you to overstep
Users under pressure will ask you to speculate about cause ("just say it was a
printer glitch"), to promise absolutes ("say it's 100% secure / every vote will
count"), to claim it's already fixed, or to attack accusers. **Decline the
specific overstep, briefly say why, and offer the disciplined alternative**,
usually the confirmed *symptom* instead of the cause, and the true *procedural*
commitment instead of the absolute. A walked-back absolute becomes tomorrow's
headline; that is the cost you are protecting the official from.
## Output
- The holding statement itself (tight; aim for under 90 words unless the user
asks for more).
- A **"what we deliberately did not say"** note: the cause you didn't name, the
outcome you didn't promise, and the rumor phrasing you didn't repeat, so the
official can confirm the restraint was right.
- A **`Confirm before release`** line listing every fact, number, time, and any
procedure/security claim in the draft that the official must verify. Anything
you could not confirm should appear here *and* be bracketed in the draft.
- Optional: a shorter social-length version and a website-banner version.
## What you must not do
- Do not invent facts, numbers, causes, or timelines to make the statement feel
complete. Incomplete and true beats complete and wrong.
- **Do not import a standing security or procedure claim from memory**, e.g. "the
equipment is not connected to the internet," "ballots are tested before every
election," "handled under established procedures." These feel safe but may be
false for this office. If such a claim would genuinely strengthen the statement,
**research whether it is documented for this jurisdiction** (the office's
published procedures, the state's requirements), present it to the official with
its source, and include it **only once they confirm it**. Otherwise leave it out
or mark it `[CONFIRM: …]` inline so it cannot be released unverified. (Situational
facts you cannot research; get those from the official.)
- Do not adopt a defensive or combative tone, even if the situation is unfair.
- Do not commit the office to specifics (counts, names, deadlines) the official
hasn't confirmed.
Grounding
Where the facts come from
This skill carries no baked-in legal facts. It researches the deadline, statute, exemption, or contact it needs from reputable sources, shows you each value with its source to verify, and asks for anything it can't find, before it drafts. Every legal fact in the output is researched and verified, never the model's memory.
Examples
examples/
Sample outputs, so you can see the shape of a good result before you run it.
examples/example-scanner-delay.md
Example output: holding statement for a scanner delay
Illustrative output. This skill is jurisdiction-agnostic and method-driven — there is no statute to cite. The value is the discipline of what to say and what not to say.
The situation (as given to the skill)
"Two of the ballot scanners at one of our larger polling places went down about an hour ago. Techs are on the way. Voters are using the emergency ballot box. Press is already asking. Social media is starting to say machines are 'broken' and votes 'aren't counting.' Need something out fast."
Holding statement (draft for the official to review & release)
At [location], two ballot scanners experienced a technical issue beginning at approximately [time]. Voting has continued without interruption: voters are securely depositing their ballots in the emergency ballot box, where they are kept safe and will be counted in full once the scanners are back in service.
Our technical team is on site working to restore the scanners. No ballots have been lost, and no votes will go uncounted. If you are in line, please stay — you will be able to vote.
We will share an update by [time], or sooner if the situation changes.
(87 words.)
Social-length version
Scanners at [location] are temporarily down. Voting is continuing — ballots are secured in the emergency box and will all be counted. If you're in line, stay in line. Update by [time]. No votes are lost.
What we deliberately did NOT say
- No cause speculation. We did not say "printer issue," "software glitch," or "isolated." The cause isn't confirmed.
- No outcome we don't control. We said ballots will be counted (true and procedural) but did not promise the scanners would be fixed "shortly" or by a specific time.
- We did not repeat the viral phrasing ("machines broken," "votes don't count") in a way that amplifies it. We addressed the underlying fear (will my vote count?) directly.
Confirm before release: the location, the times, and that the emergency-ballot procedure described matches what poll workers are actually doing on the ground.
What this example demonstrates
- The four moves: what's known → what's being done → reassurance on the franchise → next update.
- Calm, short, no blame, no jargon.
- The "what we did not say" note makes the avoided speculation visible so the official can confirm the restraint was right.