From grimoire
Recruits extraordinary people (key hires, co-founders, advisors) who screen for genuine understanding and commitment. Uses a three-visit pattern: personal approach, specific comprehension of their work, accepting refusals as signals, returning with evidence each skepticism was addressed.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/grimoire:apply-recruit-with-devotionThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Attract extraordinary people who screen for genuine understanding and commitment by approaching them personally, demonstrating specific comprehension of their work, accepting refusals as signals rather than rejections, and returning with evidence that each specific skepticism has been heard and addressed.
Attract extraordinary people who screen for genuine understanding and commitment by approaching them personally, demonstrating specific comprehension of their work, accepting refusals as signals rather than rejections, and returning with evidence that each specific skepticism has been heard and addressed.
Origin: In 207 AD, Liu Bei was a warlord without territory, his campaigns repeatedly defeated, his position dependent on borrowed hospitality. He had learned of Zhuge Liang — a scholar and strategist living in retirement at Longzhong who had never entered public service — and resolved to recruit him. Zhuge Liang was not seeking employment; he had no financial need, could choose any warlord, and had reasons to doubt Liu Bei's prospects. Liu Bei made three personal visits. The first two times, Zhuge Liang was "absent" — the standard screen of a person who does not receive everyone who presents themselves. Liu Bei waited, left, and returned. On the third visit, Liu Bei waited while Zhuge Liang napped, in the cold, refusing to wake him. When Zhuge Liang received him, Liu Bei demonstrated not only need but specific understanding — he articulated the strategic analysis of the Han situation with enough depth that Zhuge Liang recognized that Liu Bei would actually be able to execute on his advice rather than ignore it. Zhuge Liang entered Liu Bei's service. The recruitment produced the Longzhong Plan, the Three Kingdoms era's most celebrated strategic document, and Shu Han's entire subsequent strategy.
Adopted by: The three-visits pattern underlies the most significant recruitments in technology and creative industries. Steve Jobs's recruitment of John Sculley from PepsiCo began with a months-long courtship — multiple personal conversations, genuine engagement with Sculley's thinking, and the famous line "do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life?" — which was not a pitch but a direct articulation of what Jobs understood Sculley's deepest professional frustration to be. Reid Hoffman's recruitment of key LinkedIn executives, Sam Altman's recruitment of researchers to OpenAI, and Patrick Collison's personal engineering recruiting calls all follow the same structure: personal approach, demonstrated understanding of the target's specific situation and concerns, persistence through initial non-responses. The common pattern is that the recruiter subordinates their own status to demonstrate genuine regard for the recruit's — the powerful person comes to the person they need, not the reverse.
Impact: Extraordinary people receive many approaches. The first filter they apply is not "is this a good offer" but "does this person actually understand what they're asking me to do, and will they treat me as a genuine partner?" Standard recruiting processes — recruiter call, interview loop, offer — are designed to evaluate the recruit. The three-visits approach inverts this: the recruiter is being evaluated by the recruit for seriousness, understanding, and genuine need. The approach that passes this evaluation is the one that commits personal resources — time, attention, vulnerability — to demonstrating that the need is real and the understanding is genuine. This cannot be faked efficiently; it requires real engagement.
Why best: The alternative to recruit-with-devotion when pursuing extraordinary people who have alternatives is either (a) making a better financial offer — which works temporarily but attracts people who are motivated by money rather than by mission, and who will leave for better money — or (b) accepting that such people are not accessible to you. The three-visits approach creates a different selection: it attracts people who are motivated by genuine need and genuine respect, and who stay because those conditions continue to be met. The retention value of conviction-based recruiting compounds: people recruited through genuine devotion feel a reciprocal obligation that purely transactional recruitment does not create.
Sources: Chen Shou, Records of the Three Kingdoms 三国志 — "Zhuge Liang Zhuan" 諸葛亮傳 (280–290 AD); Luo Guanzhong, Romance of the Three Kingdoms 三国演义 (~1400 AD); Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs (2011); Pink, Drive (2009)
Extraordinary people who are considering joining you have specific internal tests they need you to pass. These are often not stated as objections; they appear as distance, deflection, or generic non-interest. Map the probable skepticisms before the first approach:
| Skepticism type | What it sounds like | What would address it |
|---|---|---|
| "You don't actually understand what you're asking me to do" | "I'll think about it" | Demonstrate specific comprehension of their domain at depth |
| "You won't actually let me do the work properly" | "I'm not sure it's the right time" | Show specific examples of how you've protected quality/autonomy before |
| "The mission isn't real — this is just positioning" | "I have other commitments" | Articulate the specific problem you're solving with enough precision that they recognise it |
| "You'll lose interest or run out of resources" | No response | Demonstrate persistence through the approach itself |
| "I'll be subordinated to people who don't understand my work" | "I'm happy where I am" | Describe the specific decision rights and reporting structure |
The stated objection is rarely the real one. The first approach reveals the actual test; address the actual test on the second approach.
The first approach establishes what kind of recruiter you are:
Liu Bei came in person and waited. The visit itself — without demands — was the communication. In modern contexts: a detailed written message that demonstrates genuine understanding of their work and explains why it is specifically relevant to what you are building, followed by no ask, is the modern equivalent. The first approach is about you demonstrating your seriousness, not about extracting a commitment.
Extraordinary people who are screening candidates do not reject on the first approach. They create distance to observe how the recruiter responds. A non-answer — delayed reply, vague interest, deflection — is information:
Do not increase the offer. Do not send a follow-up requesting a response. Do not show impatience. Use the interval to determine which demonstration would address the skepticism the first approach revealed — and prepare it.
The second approach is not the first approach repeated with more emphasis. It addresses the specific test the first approach revealed:
Each approach must make the person harder to remain skeptical toward. Liu Bei's second visit included waiting again — demonstrating that his interest was not a momentary impulse. His third visit included waiting while Zhuge Liang slept — demonstrating deference to the recruit's time and comfort over his own.
The number of approaches required is determined by the number of distinct skepticisms the person has, not by an arbitrary count. Three visits is the pattern, not the rule.
The cycle ends at two points:
Genuine commitment: The person says yes and articulates, explicitly or implicitly, why they are choosing to join. The articulation should reflect the specific concerns you addressed — not just "the offer was good" but "I'm convinced the mission is real" or "I trust that you understand what's required."
Definitive refusal: The person explicitly closes the door — not a deflection, not distance, but a clear statement that they are not interested. This is different from the screening non-answer. A definitive refusal is genuine information: either the fit is not right, or there is a specific condition you cannot meet. Respect it.
Do not confuse screening distance (which invites persistence) with genuine refusal (which does not). Persisting past a genuine refusal destroys the relationship and any future possibility.
The recruit-with-devotion process creates an implicit contract: the extraordinary person who allowed themselves to be recruited through genuine devotion expects the conditions that made the recruitment believable to persist. If the approach demonstrated:
Failure to deliver on these implicit promises is the most damaging outcome of the three-visits approach — more damaging than if you had never recruited them, because it retroactively reveals that the devotion was instrumental rather than genuine. Extraordinary people recruited through devotion who experience the implicit promises being broken leave publicly and completely, and they tell their networks.
Steve Jobs recruiting John Sculley (1983): Jobs spent months engaging Sculley in substantive conversations about consumer psychology, brand building, and the future of personal computing — not about the PepsiCo CEO role or what Apple could offer him. Jobs demonstrated specific understanding of Sculley's professional concerns: that Sculley had built a great marketing career but had not yet built something that would define a generation. The line "do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life?" was not a pitch — it was an articulation of the specific skepticism Jobs believed was blocking Sculley ("is this work actually meaningful?"), delivered with enough precision that Sculley later described it as the moment he knew Jobs genuinely understood what mattered to him. The three-visits pattern compressed into the conversation.
Recruiting a principal engineer from a large technology company: A Series B startup needs a principal engineer who can define its technical architecture. The target is a staff engineer at a large company, comfortable, well-compensated, and skeptical of startup instability. The standard approach (recruiter email, Glassdoor listing, offer package) produces no response. The founder instead: (1) sends a personal message demonstrating specific knowledge of three open-source contributions the engineer made and explaining how those specific technical decisions are relevant to the startup's architecture problem; (2) waits two weeks without follow-up; (3) when the engineer responds with non-committal interest, suggests a technical conversation about the specific problem — no ask to join, only to discuss the technical challenge; (4) after the conversation, sends a detailed written summary of what the engineer said and what the founder took from it, demonstrating comprehension; (5) invites the engineer to a design review. By the fifth interaction, the engineer has observed that the founder understands the domain, respects their expertise, and runs a disciplined technical process. The joining conversation follows naturally.
Attracting a marquee board member: An early-stage company wants a specific industry executive as a board member — someone whose name signals credibility to enterprise buyers. The target has been on several boards and is selective. The founder: (1) identifies through mutual connection a specific issue the target has written about and sends a detailed message engaging that issue — no mention of the board role; (2) when the target responds, requests a conversation about the issue — still no ask; (3) in the conversation, raises the specific challenge the company faces in that domain and asks for the target's analysis; (4) follows up with a memo incorporating the target's analysis and attributing the insight specifically; (5) after several conversations, makes the board request — framed as "we need someone who understands X specifically, and your analysis of Y has been the most accurate perspective we've encountered." The target joins because they have observed that the founder listens, incorporates feedback, and has a genuine specific problem the target can help solve.
Delegating the approach: Sending a recruiter for the initial contact when the recruit will be working directly with the founder or leader. Extraordinary people who are screening for genuine devotion will register that the person who needs them did not think the approach was worth their time. This is the earliest possible signal that the working relationship will not reflect the devotion being claimed.
Repeating the same approach with higher stakes: Making the second and third approaches identical to the first, only with a better offer or more urgency. This demonstrates that you did not listen to what the first approach revealed about the recruit's actual test. The test is for comprehension and specific responsiveness; repetition with escalation fails both.
Confusing genuine closeness with screening: Pushing past explicit refusals because the recruiter believes the recruit "just needs more convincing." Genuine refusals must be respected. Failure to distinguish them from screening distance is both ineffective and damaging to the relationship that would make a future approach possible.
Recruiting without being able to deliver the implicit promise: Approaching an extraordinary person who values autonomy and deep technical work, demonstrating understanding of those values — and then structuring a role that subordinates them to a non-technical manager. The recruit who joins under these conditions will leave as soon as the implicit promise becomes obviously broken, and will tell their network what happened. The three-visits approach creates a binding implicit contract; only make it if you can and will honour it.
Treating demonstrated understanding as one-time performance: Investing in genuine comprehension of the recruit's work during the approach, then failing to maintain that comprehension in the working relationship. Extraordinary people recruited through genuine understanding expect that understanding to continue. The relationship that the devotion created is maintained by continued engagement with their work, not by the fact of the initial recruitment.
npx claudepluginhub jeffreytse/grimoire --plugin grimoireSends a costly, visible market signal (e.g. overpaying for one hire, open-sourcing infrastructure) to attract high-value talent or partners when direct recruiting fails.
Builds an evidence-based networking plan for target roles—priorities, sequencing, warm paths, and gap fixes. Useful for job seekers planning outreach.
Identifies networking targets and drafts value-add outreach emails and LinkedIn requests for job searches, career pivots, or partnerships.