Stats
Actions
Tags
From skills-for-humanity
Analyzes what a piece of writing is doing rhetorically — its rhetorical situation, explicit argument vs. buried frame, appeals map, and loaded language. Useful for surfacing assumptions and examining persuasion techniques.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/skills-for-humanity:s4h-writing-rhetoricThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Rhetoric analysis asks not "what does this say" but "what is this doing." Every piece of writing has a rhetorical situation — a speaker, an audience, a purpose, a context — and makes rhetorical moves that are often invisible to both writer and reader. The analysis surfaces what is operating below the explicit argument.
Rhetoric analysis asks not "what does this say" but "what is this doing." Every piece of writing has a rhetorical situation — a speaker, an audience, a purpose, a context — and makes rhetorical moves that are often invisible to both writer and reader. The analysis surfaces what is operating below the explicit argument.
The most important distinction: the explicit argument vs. the rhetorical frame. The explicit argument is what the text claims. The rhetorical frame is what the text assumes without stating — the premises, values, and world-views that must be accepted for the argument to work, and which are never examined because they are presented as neutral common ground. The frame often does more work than the argument, and it is almost never examined.
Example: a piece arguing for stricter immigration policy may frame "the nation" as a coherent entity with interests that can be defended, may frame immigration as a flow rather than people making decisions, and may frame the relevant question as "how many" rather than "who benefits and who bears costs." None of these framing choices are acknowledged as choices — they are presented as the natural way to think about the issue. But they are doing enormous rhetorical work.
The classical appeals — logos (reason), ethos (authority/credibility), pathos (emotion) — describe the rhetorical resources available to any writer. Understanding which appeals dominate a piece, and whether they are being used proportionately and honestly, is central to rhetorical analysis.
Step 1: Rhetorical Situation Identify the four elements of the rhetorical situation:
Framing check: Confirm the specific text and its rhetorical context before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual piece being analysed, its apparent genre/form, and the core question the analysis will answer — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
Step 2: Explicit Argument vs. Rhetorical Frame State the explicit argument: what does the text claim? Then map the rhetorical frame: what does the text assume without claiming?
Step 3: Appeals Map Identify the proportion and quality of each appeal:
Step 4: Loaded Language Flag specific words or phrases that carry ideological weight without acknowledgment. These are words that encode a position within their seemingly neutral meaning:
For each: quote the term, identify what frame it encodes, and note what alternative language would make the choice visible.
Step 5: Verdict Is the rhetoric honest and proportionate to the argument? This is the key evaluative question. Rhetoric is not inherently manipulative — all writing makes rhetorical choices. The question is whether the rhetorical moves are serving the argument or substituting for it; whether the loaded language is doing work the logic doesn't; whether the frame is being deployed honestly or invisibly.
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.
Rhetorical Situation:
Explicit Argument vs. Rhetorical Frame:
Appeals Map:
Loaded Language:
Verdict: [Is the rhetoric honest and proportionate? Where does it serve the argument? Where does it substitute for it?]
/s4h-writing-argument — argument analysis evaluates whether the logic is sound; rhetoric analysis evaluates how it is being made. They are complementary, not redundant.logic-argument-validation (in the logic category) — for formal logical structure analysis when the rhetoric analysis reveals argument problems that need rigorous logical audit./s4h-writing-audience-calibration when the rhetorical analysis reveals that the text is calibrated not for its stated audience but for a different one — a common finding in political and institutional writing.After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
/s4h-writing-argument — Strengthen the underlying argument with the rhetoric/s4h-communication-objection-mapping — Map objections the rhetoric must address/s4h-writing-line-editing — Polish the rhetorical prosenpx claudepluginhub human-avatar/skills-for-humanitySurfaces the warrant, audits evidence, and addresses counterarguments in persuasive writing. Use when an argument has holes or evidence doesn't connect to the claim.
Designs logical argument structures for academic papers, policy briefs, or debates — developing a thesis, evidence, warrants, and rebuttals with internal validity and explicit counterargument handling.
Identifies the editorial angle, narrative frame, and implicit assumptions in a competitor's story, helping you choose a different, more effective framing.