🎓Built for researchers, faculty, and PhD students

Your research is rigorous.
Your communication should be too.

Academic careers are shaped by the quality of your ideas and your ability to communicate them. Grant panels, tenure committees, interdisciplinary audiences, challenging students — each requires a different kind of precision. Commy helps you practice the high-stakes conversations that determine whether your work gets heard.

No signup required. Full AI feedback on your first drill.

The conversations graduate school doesn't prepare you for

Every researcher recognizes at least three of these.

🎤

Presenting research to non-specialist audiences

You can present your work perfectly at a disciplinary conference. The problem is when you have to present to an interdisciplinary panel, a funding committee, or a general audience. The depth that impresses specialists often loses everyone else. Translating rigorous research into clear, compelling narrative is a skill that's rarely taught and constantly required.

💰

Defending grant applications under questioning

A grant panel asks why your methodology is better than alternatives, why your timeline is feasible, or what you'll do if your key hypothesis doesn't hold. These aren't hostile attacks — they're evaluation questions. But responding to them well, in real time, under pressure, requires preparation that goes beyond the written proposal.

🧑‍🎓

Navigating difficult conversations with students

Telling a PhD student their thesis needs fundamental revision. Addressing a student whose work has declined. Having a frank conversation about whether academia is the right path for someone you've invested in. These conversations define relationships and careers, and most faculty have no training for them.

🏛️

Making the case in faculty governance and committees

Departmental decisions, curriculum committees, tenure deliberations — academic governance runs on the ability to make a case, handle opposition, and build coalitions. Most researchers are trained to think carefully but not to argue effectively in these semi-political arenas.

Scenarios built for academics

Practice the conversations that determine whether your research gets funded, recognized, and remembered.

Research CommunicationAvg: 55/100

Explaining your research to a non-specialist funding panel

A government grant committee includes one expert in your field and four generalists. You have 10 minutes and five minutes of Q&A. Practice presenting your research significance in plain language — without dumbing it down or losing rigor — and handling the basic "why does this matter?" question with conviction.

Grant DefenseAvg: 58/100

Defending your methodology under expert questioning

A reviewer asks why you chose your statistical approach over an alternative they consider superior. Practice the response that acknowledges the alternative, explains your reasoning, and demonstrates that you've thought carefully about the tradeoffs — without becoming defensive.

Student MentorshipAvg: 62/100

Giving a PhD student difficult feedback on their work

A second-year PhD student's thesis chapter has fundamental structural problems that will require significant revision. They've been working on it for months. Practice delivering the feedback with honesty and specificity — in a way that motivates the revision rather than demoralizing the student.

Faculty GovernanceAvg: 57/100

Making a case in a contentious faculty meeting

A curriculum change you support is facing opposition from a vocal subset of colleagues. You have the floor and three minutes before the vote. Practice making your argument — acknowledging the concerns, presenting the evidence, and appealing to shared values — without sounding like you're dismissing opposition.

Conference CommunicationAvg: 54/100

Responding to hostile questions at a conference

A senior scholar in your field challenges your methodology in front of an audience after your talk. The question has a critical edge. Practice responding calmly and substantively — taking the question seriously, acknowledging what's fair, and defending what you believe in — without sounding rattled or dismissive.

What improvement looks like

Research presentation to a non-specialist audience

Before

Leads with methodology and literature context. Non-specialists disconnect in the first three minutes. Questions are thin. No follow-up interest.

After Commy

Leads with significance and a concrete problem. Methodology presented as service to the question, not the point itself. Audience engaged. Two follow-up conversations.

45/100
80/100

Grant panel defense

Before

Defensive when challenged on methodology. Explains more rather than acknowledging the concern first. Panel feels unconvinced.

After Commy

Acknowledges the alternative, explains the tradeoff, demonstrates awareness of limitations. Panel feels confident in the researcher's rigor.

52/100
83/100

Difficult feedback to a PhD student

Before

Softens feedback so heavily that the student doesn't understand the severity. Student continues in the wrong direction for another month.

After Commy

Honest about the problems, specific about what needs to change, and clear about the path forward. Student feels challenged but supported.

48/100
81/100

What academics say

My writing is strong. My presentations at specialist conferences are solid. But interdisciplinary talks were always a struggle — I'd lose the room explaining context. The non-specialist communication drills changed that completely.

Associate Professor

Cognitive science, R1 university

I was terrified of funding panel Q&A. I knew the research cold but couldn't think on my feet when people pushed back. After two weeks of grant defense drills, my last panel went completely differently. I got the grant.

Postdoctoral Researcher

Biomedical research, NIH-funded lab

The hardest part of advising is having honest conversations with struggling students. I used to avoid them or soften them too much. Commy helped me practice being both honest and genuinely supportive at the same time.

Full Professor

Humanities, public university

Great research deserves great communication.

The academics who get funded, promoted, and remembered are the ones whose ideas reach beyond their specialty. Commy helps you practice communicating with the same precision you bring to your research.

Try a free drill →

No signup required.

Frequently asked questions

What is Commy?

Commy is an AI communication coaching platform that helps professionals practice salary negotiation, difficult conversations, leadership communication, and public speaking through interactive drills with real-time AI feedback and scoring.

How does AI communication coaching work?

You choose a realistic professional scenario — like negotiating a raise or handling a conflict. You speak or type your response. Commy's AI analyzes your communication in real time and provides specific scores and feedback on clarity, confidence, empathy, assertiveness, and structure.

Is there a free plan?

Yes. Commy offers a free plan with 5 drills per day, all scenario types, and full AI feedback and scores. No credit card required. The Pro plan ($12/month) offers unlimited drills and personalized coaching.

What types of communication can I practice?

Commy covers 12+ scenario categories including salary negotiation, job interviews, conflict resolution, performance reviews, public speaking, client pitches, executive presence, difficult conversations, investor pitches, giving feedback, brainstorming sessions, and cross-cultural communication.

How is Commy different from traditional coaching?

Traditional communication coaching costs $200-500 per session and requires scheduling. Commy provides unlimited AI coaching available 24/7 at a fraction of the cost, with consistent scoring and immediate feedback after every drill. You can practice the same scenario repeatedly until you master it.