Stats
Actions
Tags
From skills-for-humanity
Maps deep structural correspondence between two situations to distinguish genuine isomorphism from superficial similarity. Validates analogies and exposes where they break.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/skills-for-humanity:s4h-analogy-structure-mappingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Analogies are persuasive but often wrong. The surface similarity that makes a comparison
Analogies are persuasive but often wrong. The surface similarity that makes a comparison feel apt can obscure structural differences that make it invalid. This skill maps the deep structure of both situations and checks correspondence element by element — distinguishing genuine isomorphism (same structure, different content) from superficial similarity (same surface, different structure).
Step 1: State the Two Situations Write Situation A and Situation B clearly. State the analogy as claimed: "A is like B because..."
Framing check: Confirm the specific analogy before continuing. State what you've identified — the two situations being compared and the analogical claim linking them — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
Step 2: Extract Structure of Each For each situation independently, map: key actors, their relationships, the dynamics (what drives change), the constraints (what limits action), and the goals (what success looks like). Do this for each situation before comparing — comparison before extraction introduces bias.
Step 3: Map Elements A to B For each structural element in A, identify the corresponding element in B. State the mapping explicitly: "In A, X plays the role of Y in B."
Step 4: Classify Each Mapped Pair For each mapped pair: is the correspondence genuine (same structural role, same relationship type, same dynamics) or superficial (same label or surface feature, different structural role)?
Step 5: Find Where the Mapping Breaks Every analogy breaks somewhere — this is not a failure, it is where the analysis becomes useful. Which differences are structurally significant? Which make the analogy unreliable for the specific prediction or decision being made?
Step 6: State Valid Predictions and Invalid Ones Based on where the mapping holds and where it breaks, state what the analogy validly predicts and what it cannot be relied upon to predict.
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Situation A structure: [actors / relationships / dynamics / constraints / goals] Situation B structure: [actors / relationships / dynamics / constraints / goals]
Element mapping:
| Element in A | Corresponding element in B | Genuine / Superficial | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
Where the mapping breaks:
[Specific structural differences and why they matter]
Valid predictions (analogy holds):
[What can be reliably inferred from B about A]
Invalid predictions (analogy breaks):
[What cannot be inferred — where relying on the analogy would mislead]
Genuine structural correspondence requires that the relationship between elements matches — not just that individual elements can be paired. Two things can share every node and differ entirely on the edges that connect them.
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
/s4h-logic-check — Validate that the structural mapping holds/s4h-analogy-domain-transfer — Use the structure map to guide a domain transfer/s4h-systems-feedback-mapping — Check if the structure reveals feedback dynamicsnpx claudepluginhub human-avatar/skills-for-humanityRoutes analogical reasoning to the right sub-skill: boundary-testing, domain-transfer, perspective-shifting, or structure-mapping. Use for finding comparisons, importing solutions, or testing analogies.
Maps source-domain components of an analogy to target technical concept components, flagging unmapped elements and checking relation systematicity. Use after generate-analogy-set.
Validates structural mappings between abstract concepts and concrete domains: detects uncertainty, constructs correspondences, generates instantiations, and confirms via user input.