Rule 4 of 33 · Chapter I — How We Communicate
Assume good intent, and write like it
Why this rule exists
Text strips out tone, and our brains fill the gap with the worst plausible reading, especially when we're tired or the message is terse. A blunt 'why did you do it this way?' lands as an accusation when it was meant as curiosity, and a whole afternoon curdles over a sentence that took four seconds to type. On a distributed team where most communication is written, this failure mode isn't occasional, it's structural, and it compounds. Assuming good intent is partly a discipline you apply when reading, giving the charitable interpretation first, and partly a courtesy you extend when writing, spending the extra few words that make your tone unmistakable. Trust is the substrate everything else runs on here, and it's built or eroded one message at a time. The cheapest way to keep it is to be a little warmer than feels necessary and a little slower to take offense than feels natural.
In practice
When a message stings, wait before you reply, and consider whether a generous reading fits the facts, because it usually does. If you're genuinely unsure what someone meant, ask before you react. When writing something that could be read as criticism, add the context that makes your intent clear, and don't be shy with a word of appreciation or an emoji that signals you're on the same side. Ask real questions rather than rhetorical ones dressed up as questions. If a thread is going sideways in text, stop typing and hop on a call, because ten minutes of voice can undo an hour of escalating paragraphs. And when you get something wrong, say so quickly and plainly.
When it doesn't apply
Assuming good intent is not the same as ignoring a real pattern; if someone is repeatedly dismissive or unkind, name it directly rather than absorbing it forever. And urgent safety or ethical concerns don't wait for the charitable framing.