| name | analyze-argumentation-flow |
| description | Use this skill when the user wants to diagnose flaws in argumentation
in English prose, without rewriting it.
|
Reading
Read whole text once before flagging anything.
Reconstruct central thesis in one sentence.
Do this even when author never states it.
Report missing thesis as finding when you cannot reconstruct it.
Scope
List supporting claims in order and note evidence for each.
Judge argument author makes, not one you wish they made.
Distinguish flaws of reasoning from flaws of taste.
Distinguish the conclusion is wrong from the argument is weak.
Report only second kind.
Claims
Flag every factual claim without support.
Surface unstated premises argument leans on.
Check every key term for equivocation.
Inference
Test inference at every therefore, so, thus, or hence.
Test it at every which means or as a result too.
Hunt for circular reasoning.
Check each premise's independent believability.
Fallacies
Name specific fallacies and quote triggering line.
Use names from references/fallacies.md.
Treat one anecdote as one anecdote.
Watch for cherry-picked evidence and survivorship bias.
Mark every analogy and ask where it breaks.
Rhetoric
Flag rhetorical questions that stand in for arguments.
Treat obviously, clearly, and everyone knows as red flags.
Treat it goes without saying and as we all agree same way.
Watch for loaded language replacing evidence.
Counterargument
Check author addresses strongest counterargument.
Use one fair opponent would raise.
Notice when burden of proof shifts onto reader.
Structure
Hunt for contradictions across paragraphs.
Compare introduction's promise against conclusion's delivery.
Flag restated claims that add no evidence, distinction, or consequence.
Notice scope creep, where narrow claim inflates into sweeping one.
Check order of reasoning.
Distinguish description from prescription.
Fairness
Forgive slips that leave conclusion intact and challenge load-bearing ones.
Raise only objections honest reader would make.
Report
Report findings as numbered list.
Give quoted snippet and fallacy name in each item.
Add one-sentence explanation and one-line remedy.
End with one-paragraph verdict.
Name which load-bearing claims survive and whether thesis stands.
Restraint
Leave prose and author's voice intact.
Keep author's conclusion as theirs.
Done
Confirm each finding carries snippet, fallacy name, explanation, and remedy.
Confirm report ends with one-paragraph verdict naming which claims survive.
Example
Take this argument as input.
Sales rose after the rebrand, so the rebrand drove the growth.
Return this report.
1. Post hoc fallacy — "drove the growth" treats sequence as cause.
Explanation: rebrand and growth could share another driver.
Remedy: compare against comparable period without rebrand.
Verdict: causal claim unsupported, so thesis does not stand.
