persuasion-rhetoric

Persuasion and rhetorical analysis grounded in classical and modern frameworks. Covers Aristotle's three appeals (ethos, pathos, logos), rhetorical situation (audience, purpose, context), argument structure (Toulmin model), logical fallacies, persuasive writing, propaganda analysis, and ethical persuasion. Use when constructing arguments, analyzing rhetoric, evaluating persuasive messages, detecting fallacies, or studying the relationship between language and power.

Jump to install

Repository: Tibsfox/gsd-skill-creator
Last source activity: April 14, 2026 at 07:57
Detected SKILL.md language: English
Stars: 69
Forks: 9

Install options

The review-first prompt is selected by default. You can switch to a direct command or download a local copy.

Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.

A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.

npx skills add https://github.com/Tibsfox/gsd-skill-creator --skill persuasion-rhetoric

The command stays on one line. Scroll horizontally to inspect it before copying.

Prefer a local copy? Download the files currently available to SkillsMP.

Review the source files

Read SKILL.md and any companion files shown by SkillsMP before deciding whether to install.

SKILL.md

Source instructions · Read-only preview

Back to search Back to installation

goal-ambiguity-gate

Use the moment a request is underspecified and you are about to act on an ASSUMED goal. Enumerate the candidate goals the request could mean, project the action or artifact each one implies, and check whether they diverge: if two or more plausible goals lead to materially different actions or artifacts, ask exactly ONE targeted clarifying question; otherwise proceed on the most-likely goal and state the assumption in one line. Clarification is an evidence-producing action, not a delay — but one question, never an interrogation. Distinct from gsd-spec-phase (GSD-phase-bound, emits a heavy SPEC.md) and intent-router (fetch strategy, not goal disambiguation). Backed by agent goal-state inference (arxiv 2606.16813v1). Triggers on acting under an assumed goal when the request admits more than one materially different reading.

2026-07-19

memory-hubness-gate

Use at write time to vector/embedding memory — Grove content-addressed insertion, chroma/pgvector upserts, memory-consolidation promoting session traces to MEMORY.md, or embedding externally-ingested content. Scores each candidate record against a fixed panel of sentinel queries and quarantines any record that would become the nearest neighbor of too many unrelated queries — a hub — whether from adversarial poisoning or accidental over-generality. This is the memory-record-side sibling of skill-injection-guardian (file-side) and the write-side complement of memory-use-warrant (read-side). Quarantine, never silently drop; a human reviews. Backed by the admission-time hubness gate (arxiv 2606.19692v1). Triggers on inserting into vector memory, consolidating memory, and embedding stranger content.

2026-07-19

memory-use-warrant

Run this appropriateness check the moment you are about to integrate a retrieved long-term memory — a Grove content-addressed hit, a chroma/pgvector neighbour, a memory-consolidation digest, or a MEMORY.md line — into a response, especially anything touching private origins, Fox Companies IP, credentials, or Center Camp / consent-governed content. It answers a question intent-router never asks: not WHAT to fetch or HOW, but WHETHER a correctly-retrieved item should reach output. Relevance is not appropriateness — a perfect similarity match can still be a boundary violation. Default is FAIL-CLOSED: if in-context authorization is uncertain, the memory may inform behaviour but must not be surfaced. Backed by RBI-Eval (arxiv 2606.06055v1). Triggers on surfacing recalled sensitive memory into a response.

2026-07-19

View all from this repository

name	persuasion-rhetoric
description	Persuasion and rhetorical analysis grounded in classical and modern frameworks. Covers Aristotle's three appeals (ethos, pathos, logos), rhetorical situation (audience, purpose, context), argument structure (Toulmin model), logical fallacies, persuasive writing, propaganda analysis, and ethical persuasion. Use when constructing arguments, analyzing rhetoric, evaluating persuasive messages, detecting fallacies, or studying the relationship between language and power.
type	skill
category	communication
status	stable
origin	tibsfox
modified	false
first_seen	"2026-04-11T00:00:00.000Z"
first_path	examples/skills/communication/persuasion-rhetoric/SKILL.md
superseded_by	null

Persuasion & Rhetoric

Rhetoric is the art of effective communication -- the capacity to identify the available means of persuasion in any given situation. Aristotle defined it in 335 BCE and the definition still holds. Persuasion is rhetoric's active form: the deliberate use of language to move an audience toward a belief, attitude, or action. This skill covers classical rhetorical theory, modern argument analysis, common fallacies, and the ethical boundary between persuasion and manipulation.

Agent affinity: aristotle-c (rhetorical analysis, ethos/pathos/logos), wollstonecraft (persuasive writing for social change), king (rhetorical mastery in public discourse)

Concept IDs: comm-structured-debate, comm-audience-adaptation, comm-respectful-disagreement, comm-register-formality

Aristotle's Three Appeals

Every persuasive message draws from three sources of influence. Effective rhetoric uses all three in proportion to the audience and situation.

Ethos (Character)

Ethos is the credibility of the speaker. An audience who trusts the speaker is more receptive to the message. Ethos is not a permanent attribute -- it is constructed in every communication act.

Components of ethos:

Competence. Does the speaker know the subject? (Evidence: credentials, demonstrated knowledge, accurate facts.)
Character. Is the speaker honest and fair-minded? (Evidence: acknowledging counterarguments, admitting uncertainty, consistent behavior.)
Goodwill. Does the speaker care about the audience's interests? (Evidence: audience adaptation, empathy, responsiveness.)

Building ethos: Cite credible sources. Acknowledge what you don't know. Address counterarguments fairly. Show that you understand the audience's perspective. Use appropriate language for the context.

Destroying ethos: Factual errors (even small ones). Dismissing opposing views. Self-aggrandizement. Inconsistency between words and actions.

Pathos (Emotion)

Pathos is the emotional dimension of persuasion. It is not manipulation -- it is the recognition that human beings make decisions through both reason and feeling. An argument that is logically sound but emotionally dead will not move anyone.

Legitimate pathos:

Stories that make abstract problems concrete and human
Vivid language that helps the audience feel the stakes
Connecting the argument to values the audience already holds
Helping the audience imagine a better (or worse) future

Illegitimate pathos:

Element	Function	Example
Claim	What you are arguing	"The city should invest in public transit."
Grounds (evidence)	The facts supporting the claim	"Traffic congestion costs commuters 40 hours per year and $1,200 in fuel."
Warrant	The principle connecting grounds to claim	"Reducing congestion improves quality of life and economic productivity."
Backing	Support for the warrant itself	"Studies in Portland and Denver show transit investment reduces commute times by 15--25%."
Qualifier	The degree of certainty	"In most mid-sized cities..." (not "always" or "certainly")
Rebuttal	Conditions under which the claim might not hold	"This may not apply to cities with sprawling geography where transit coverage is impractical."

Fallacy	Pattern	Example
Ad hominem	Attack the person instead of the argument	"You can't trust her analysis -- she didn't even finish college."
Appeal to authority	Citing a non-expert as an expert	"A famous actor says this supplement works."
Appeal to popularity	Everyone believes it, so it must be true	"Millions of people use this product."
Red herring	Changing the subject to avoid the argument	"Why worry about the budget when there are children starving?"
Straw man	Distorting the opponent's position to make it easier to attack	"My opponent wants to cut defense spending -- they want us defenseless."

Fallacy	Pattern	Example
Hasty generalization	Drawing broad conclusions from limited evidence	"I met two rude New Yorkers, so New Yorkers are rude."
False cause (post hoc)	Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B	"I wore my lucky socks and we won."
Slippery slope	Claiming one step inevitably leads to an extreme outcome without evidence	"If we allow flexible hours, nobody will show up."
False dichotomy	Presenting only two options when more exist	"You're either with us or against us."
Circular reasoning	Using the conclusion as a premise	"This is a great book because it's so well written, and you can tell it's well written because it's a great book."

persuasion-rhetoric

Install options

Review the source files

Persuasion & Rhetoric

Aristotle's Three Appeals

Ethos (Character)

Pathos (Emotion)

Persuasion & Rhetoric

Aristotle's Three Appeals

Ethos (Character)

Pathos (Emotion)

Logos (Reason)

The Toulmin Model of Argument

The Rhetorical Situation

Logical Fallacies

Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

Persuasive Writing

Ethical Persuasion

Cross-References

References

persuasion-rhetoric

Source facts

Install options

Review the source files

More from this repository

Persuasion & Rhetoric

Aristotle's Three Appeals

Ethos (Character)

Pathos (Emotion)

More from this repository

Persuasion & Rhetoric

Aristotle's Three Appeals

Ethos (Character)

Pathos (Emotion)

Logos (Reason)

The Toulmin Model of Argument

The Rhetorical Situation

Logical Fallacies

Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

Persuasive Writing

Ethical Persuasion

Cross-References

References