Stats
Actions
Tags
From skills-for-humanity
Surfaces the warrant, audits evidence, and addresses counterarguments in persuasive writing. Use when an argument has holes or evidence doesn't connect to the claim.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/skills-for-humanity:s4h-writing-argumentThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Arguments fail not in the evidence but in the warrant — the unstated principle connecting evidence to claim. The warrant is the assumption that makes the argument work. Most writers never surface it, because to them it is obvious. But the reader may be supplying a different warrant — and reaching a different conclusion from the same evidence.
Arguments fail not in the evidence but in the warrant — the unstated principle connecting evidence to claim. The warrant is the assumption that makes the argument work. Most writers never surface it, because to them it is obvious. But the reader may be supplying a different warrant — and reaching a different conclusion from the same evidence.
The structure of every argument:
Example: "Remote workers are more productive (evidence). Therefore we should adopt a remote work policy (claim)." The warrant — "policies should be adopted when they increase productivity" — sounds obvious but is not. A reader who believes "productivity must be balanced against team cohesion and culture" will not accept the warrant, and the argument fails for them even if the evidence is strong. Making the warrant explicit forces both writer and reader to examine the actual assumption.
The second most common failure: the strongest counterargument is not addressed. An argument that doesn't engage its best objection is not a complete argument — it is a one-sided brief that any reader with reservations can dismiss. Addressing the counterargument, not to concede but to answer it, is what makes an argument persuasive rather than merely insistent.
Step 1: Central Claim State the argument's claim in one sentence. Be specific: "We should adopt a four-day work week" is more specific than "Work-life balance matters." The more specific the claim, the more clearly the evidence can be evaluated against it. A claim that can't be stated specifically is often a claim that hasn't been formed yet.
Framing check: Confirm the specific argument before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual claim being argued and the context or piece it appears in — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
Step 2: Warrant — State It Explicitly What principle or assumption connects the evidence to the claim? State it as a full sentence: "X is true (evidence), and because [warrant], therefore Y (claim)." Test: does the argument work if the reader doesn't share the warrant? If not, the warrant needs to be argued for — not just asserted.
Step 3: Evidence Audit For each piece of evidence:
Step 4: Counterargument Identify the strongest objection to the claim — the best case that a reasonable, informed person in disagreement could make. Then assess: is this counterargument addressed in the piece? If it is not addressed, the argument has a hole that every skeptical reader will find. If it is addressed, is it addressed honestly (engaging the best version) or with a strawman (misrepresenting it to make it easy to defeat)?
Step 5: Rhetorical Substitutes Flag appeals that are standing in for reasoning:
These are not automatically illegitimate — emotion and authority are genuine persuasive tools. The problem is when they substitute for reasoning rather than support it.
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.
Central Claim: [The argument in one sentence]
Warrant: [Explicit statement of the connecting principle — acknowledged in the piece / reconstructed if implicit]
Evidence Quality:
Strongest Counterargument: [The best objection to the claim] — Addressed / Not addressed / Strawmanned
Rhetorical Substitutes:
Verdict on Argument Strength: [Strong / Has specific weaknesses / Weak — with diagnosis]
Reconstruction at Full Strength: [The argument rebuilt — claim, warrant made explicit, evidence tightened, counterargument addressed, rhetorical substitutes replaced with reasoning]
/s4h-writing-rhetoric — rhetoric analysis examines how the argument is being made (its framing, its appeals, its assumptions); argument analysis examines whether the argument is sound./s4h-writing-restructure — many argument problems are structural: the claim comes too late, the counterargument is buried, the warrant appears at the end when it needs to anchor the whole./s4h-writing-audience-calibration — the warrant that works for one audience may not work for another; calibration includes choosing which assumptions to surface and argue for.After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
/s4h-writing-rhetoric — Strengthen the argument with rhetorical technique/s4h-logic-argument-validation — Validate the argument's logical structure/s4h-communication-objection-mapping — Address objections the argument will facenpx claudepluginhub human-avatar/skills-for-humanityDesigns logical argument structures for academic papers, policy briefs, or debates — developing a thesis, evidence, warrants, and rebuttals with internal validity and explicit counterargument handling.
Construct well-structured arguments using the hypothesis-argument-example triad. Use for PR descriptions, ADRs, code review feedback, and technical proposals.
Writes structured op-eds from a position, evidence, and audience. Useful for journalists and contributors who need to shape arguments into publishable form.