Loading...
Loading...
Found 10 Skills
Construct well-structured arguments using the hypothesis-argument-example triad. Covers formulating falsifiable hypotheses, building logical arguments (deductive, inductive, analogical, evidential), providing concrete examples, and steelmanning counterarguments. Use when writing or reviewing PR descriptions that propose technical changes, justifying design decisions in ADRs, constructing substantive code review feedback, or building a research argument or technical proposal.
Analyze the purpose and value orientation of legal norms, how facts should enter normative evaluation, the limits of legal subsumption, and the need to distinguish this approach appropriately from purposive interpretation within legal interpretation.
Develop argumentation skills with structured debate preparation
Interactive debate and argument practice with structured feedback, counterargument generation, logical fallacy identification, and scoring rubrics. Use when preparing for debates, improving persuasion skills, or practicing argumentation.
Use when reviewing or editing research manuscripts, journal articles, reviews, or perspectives. Invoke when user mentions manuscript, paper draft, article, research writing, journal submission, reviewer feedback, or needs to improve scientific writing clarity, structure, or argumentation in their manuscript.
Compose intellectually sophisticated persuasive essays using tripartite dialectical structure (establish-critique-synthesize), paradox accumulation, conversational register calibration, and strategic humility. Supports three atomic writing primitives (AGONAL α, MAIEUTIC β, APOPHATIC γ) with hypersoft plithogenic composition, plus legacy style modes and hybrid combinations. Triggers on requests for persuasive writing to mixed/skeptical audiences, defending counterintuitive claims, Socratic pedagogical dialogue, editorial first-person essays, or writing that must balance accessibility with depth. Implements recursive thematic anchoring, forced dilemma construction, and transformed return closure. Use when linear argumentation is insufficient and accumulated tension resolves through synthesis.
Use when the user needs research methodology, long-form content creation, academic-style citations, fact-checking, or evidence-based writing with proper source attribution. Trigger conditions: whitepaper drafting, research article writing, source evaluation, citation management, fact-checking protocol, case study creation, evidence-based argumentation.
Classify a PPT brief into one of four types (Pitch / Research / Teaching / Narrative), then generate a high-level chapter skeleton personalized to the topic for that type. Different PPT types require different argumentation frameworks and different chapter structures — a research PPT is not a pitch, and a pitch is not a narrative. Use this at the very start of PPT planning, before formulating the thesis. It pairs with ppt-research-setup and other type-specific setup skills for detailed per-chapter reasoning.
Rigorous reasoning using philosophical theories and scientific methods. Use this skill when analyzing logic, evaluating arguments, constructing proofs, critiquing opinions, or solving complex problems requiring critical thinking. Triggers - debate, proof, critique, logical analysis, argument evaluation, fallacy detection, inference, argumentation, logical fallacy, critical thinking.
Perform rigorous legal deductive reasoning based on formal logic. Use this skill when the user asks to “analyze case logic,” “validate legal reasoning,” “extract syllogisms,” “map the relationship between case facts and statutory provisions,” or “assess the validity of legal arguments.” Provide the user with a formal-logic-based legal reasoning framework that converts unstructured legal rules and case facts into a valid, testable, and reproducible deductive chain of reasoning (P-F-C).