Stats
Actions
Tags
From skills-for-humanity
Identifies the current narrative frame around a situation and generates alternative frames that reveal different truths. Useful for communication breakdowns, reframing requests, or when perspectives conflict.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/skills-for-humanity:s4h-narrative-frame-analysisThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Frames are invisible until named. The same facts support radically different conclusions depending on who is the protagonist, what counts as the problem, and what counts as success. Most communication failures are framing failures — not evidence failures. Reframing does not change the facts; it changes which facts are salient and which conclusions they support.
Frames are invisible until named. The same facts support radically different conclusions depending on who is the protagonist, what counts as the problem, and what counts as success. Most communication failures are framing failures — not evidence failures. Reframing does not change the facts; it changes which facts are salient and which conclusions they support.
Step 1: Name the Current Frame Make the implicit explicit. Who is the protagonist in the current frame? What is the problem being solved? What counts as a successful outcome? What is the frame's implicit villain or antagonist?
Framing check: Confirm the specific situation and its dominant frame before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual narrative or discourse being analysed, who the current protagonist is, and what the core tension appears to be — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
Step 2: Identify What the Current Frame Hides Every frame foregrounds some things and backgrounds others. What does the current frame make invisible, irrelevant, or unthinkable? Who loses standing in this frame? What solutions become impossible to see?
Step 3: Generate 3–4 Alternative Frames For each alternative, change at least one of: protagonist, problem definition, success criteria, or time horizon. Assign each alternative a short name.
Step 4: Assess Each Alternative What does each alternative frame reveal that the current frame hides? Who gains standing? What solutions become visible? What previously central concerns become peripheral?
Step 5: Select the Most Useful Frame
Before narrowing: Show the complete set of alternative frames generated in Step 3 to the user first. Use AskUserQuestion:
The best frame is not the most flattering — it is the one that most accurately surfaces what matters and opens the most productive path forward. State the rationale.
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.
Current Frame
Alternative Frames
| Frame Name | Protagonist | Problem Definition | Success Criteria | What It Reveals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended Frame: [name] — [rationale in 2 sentences]
Message Implications: [how communication changes under the recommended frame]
Reframing surfaces different truths, not false ones. If an alternative frame requires ignoring real evidence, it is spin — a useful frame must be defensible against the facts.
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
/s4h-narrative-structure-mapping — Map the structure of the dominant frame/s4h-communication-objection-mapping — Map objections rooted in alternative frames/s4h-writing-argument — Build an argument that works within the framenpx claudepluginhub human-avatar/skills-for-humanityAnalyzes how framing shapes perception and solution options in conversations or documents. Identifies active frames, maps implications, and generates alternative frames.
Analyzes how question framing shaped prior reasoning sessions by identifying 3-4 effects and proposing one alternative question. Run after Libertee methods or substantial thinking.
Reframers stated problems via lenses (problem-vs-symptom, scope-shift, stakeholder-shift, abstraction, time, inversion, category, constraints), extracts premises, recommends alternatives. Prevents solving wrong problems.