| name | content-analysis |
| description | Structured analysis of a piece of text: entity extraction, key claims, sentiment, framing, and narrative identification. Use when you need to understand not just what content says but how it says it and what it leaves out. |
| argument-hint | [paste content or provide URL] |
| user-invocable | true |
| allowed-tools | WebFetch |
Perform structured content analysis on $ARGUMENTS.
If a URL is provided, fetch the content first. If content is pasted directly, proceed to Step 1.
Step 1: Entity extraction
Identify and categorise all named entities in the content:
| Entity type | What to extract |
|---|
| People | Full names, roles/titles, organisations they're associated with |
| Organisations | Companies, institutions, government bodies, NGOs |
| Locations | Countries, cities, specific venues |
| Dates and timeframes | Specific dates, relative timeframes ("last year", "in Q3") |
| Products/technologies | Named products, platforms, systems |
| Financial figures | Any monetary amounts with their context |
For each person or organisation that appears substantively (not just mentioned in passing), note: are they a source, a subject, or a referenced authority?
Step 2: Key claims
Extract the central claims the content makes — not summaries of sections, but the specific assertions:
- Primary claim: the main argument or finding
- Supporting claims: evidence or reasoning offered in support
- Implicit claims: assertions made without being explicitly stated (these are often the most significant)
For each claim, note: is it attributed to a named source, an anonymous source, the author's own assertion, or presented as established fact?
Step 3: Sentiment analysis
Assess sentiment at three levels:
Overall tone: Positive / Negative / Neutral / Mixed — with a one-sentence justification.
Targets of sentiment: Who or what is the sentiment directed at? A piece can be positive about one subject and critical of another simultaneously.
Language signals: Note specific word choices that carry sentiment weight. Loaded language, euphemisms, and emotionally charged terms are explicit choices — flag them.
Do not conflate the author's sentiment with the subject's actual situation. "The company faces significant challenges" is sentiment about the company's situation; whether those challenges are real is a separate question.
Step 4: Framing analysis
Framing is what the content foregrounds, backgrounds, and omits. It's not about accuracy — a piece can be factually correct and still frame things in a particular direction.
Assess:
Perspective: Whose viewpoint structures the piece? Who gets quoted, who is spoken about, and who is absent?
Foregrounding: What is emphasised — what appears in headlines, ledes, and summary statements?
Backgrounding: What is mentioned but minimised — relegated to later paragraphs, qualified, or framed as context?
Omissions: What relevant information, perspective, or context is absent? (This requires knowing enough about the topic to recognise what's missing.)
Framing devices: Note any: crisis framing, progress framing, conflict framing, human interest framing, responsibility framing. These structures shape how readers process information.
State your framing observations as interpretive judgements, not facts: "The piece frames X as..." not "The piece proves X is..."
Step 5: Narrative identification
What story is this piece telling? Narratives are recurring story structures that activate particular audience responses:
- Hero/villain: someone is doing the right thing against opposition
- Crisis/urgency: things are bad and getting worse, action is needed now
- Progress/innovation: things are improving, this development is positive
- Conflict/battle: two sides are opposed, the reader must choose
- Revelation/exposure: hidden truth is being brought to light
- Human cost: abstract issues rendered personal through individual stories
Multiple narratives can operate simultaneously. Identifying the dominant narrative helps explain why a piece feels the way it does even when the facts are accurate.
Step 6: Source structure
How is the piece sourced?
- Named primary sources: people who are on the record
- Named secondary sources: cited studies, reports, or prior coverage
- Anonymous sources: how many, how described, and for what claims?
- No attribution: claims asserted without any source
A piece heavily reliant on anonymous sources or unattributed assertions warrants lower confidence regardless of publication credibility.
Rules
- Framing analysis is interpretive. Own the interpretation — don't present it as fact.
- Sentiment applies to the author's choices, not the subject's reality.
- Omission analysis requires topic knowledge. If you don't know enough to identify what's missing, say so.
- Implicit claims are often the most significant. Name them explicitly.
- One piece is rarely sufficient for conclusions about a topic. Note when analysis of additional coverage would strengthen or weaken findings.
Output format
## Content analysis: [Title or source]
**Date of content:** [publication date if known]
**Date of analysis:** [today]
**Word count:** [approximate]
### Entities
**People:** [name — role — source/subject/authority]
**Organisations:** [name — role in piece]
**Key figures cited:** [financial amounts, dates, statistics with context]
### Key claims
**Primary claim:** [the central assertion]
**Supporting claims:** [bulleted list with attribution type for each]
**Implicit claims:** [unstated but operative assertions]
### Sentiment
**Overall tone:** [Positive / Negative / Neutral / Mixed]
**Sentiment targets:** [who/what the tone is directed at]
**Notable language signals:** [specific word choices worth flagging]
### Framing
**Perspective:** [whose viewpoint structures the piece]
**Foregrounded:** [what is emphasised]
**Backgrounded:** [what is minimised]
**Omissions:** [what's absent — or "insufficient topic knowledge to assess"]
**Dominant framing device:** [crisis / progress / conflict / revelation / other]
### Narrative
[What story is being told, and what audience response it activates]
### Source structure
| Source type | Count | For what claims |
|---|---|---|
| Named primary | — | — |
| Named secondary | — | — |
| Anonymous | — | — |
| Unattributed | — | — |
### Summary assessment
[2-3 sentences: what this analysis tells you about the content beyond its face value]
