critical-argumentation
From the author
Practical argument analysis and construction -- how to identify, evaluate, reconstruct, and build real arguments in natural language. Covers argument identification (premises, conclusions, intermediate steps), charity and steel-manning, argument mapping, the distinction between deductive validity and inductive strength, burden of proof, and the rhetorical context in which arguments operate. Use when the goal is to engage with real-world argument rather than to formalize it.
Install
npx skills add Tibsfox/gsd-skill-creator --skill critical-argumentation -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/critical-argumentation/ · Each command fetches the skill straight from GitHub with the open skills CLI.
No download: this skill’s licence (Custom or unclear) does not let us redistribute its files. The install commands fetch them from GitHub instead.
Want your agent to suggest skills while you type? See how to use skills from your IDE.
Safety checks on SKILL.md
No warnings.
Why 72
aiqbench computes the trust score from public signals. It is not a security audit, so read a skill before you install it.
Similar skills
Closest to this one by what they do and when they are used.
- critical-readingTibsfox/gsd-skill-creatorAnalytical evaluation of texts for argument quality, author purpose, bias, credibility, and rhetorical strategy. Covers the distinction between comprehension and critique, argument analysis (claims, evidence, reasoning, warrants), rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos), bias identification (selection bias, confirmation bias, loaded language, omission), source credibility evaluation (CRAAP test, lateral reading), propaganda techniques, media literacy, and multi-text synthesis. Use when evaluating arguments, identifying bias, assessing source reliability, analyzing rhetoric, or synthesizing across multiple texts on the same topic.Testing★ 71
- critical-thinkingtronghieu/agent-skillsAudit the reasoning of a document or argument (memo, proposal, investment analysis, board paper, article, the user's own draft): claims, evidence, unstated assumptions, logical gaps, fallacies, and what would falsify it, each anchored to quoted text. Use whenever the user wants reasoning examined, in any language ("audit this argument", "is this analysis sound", "poke holes in this proposal", "review the logic of my draft"; Vietnamese "phản biện giúp tôi", "soi lập luận này", "tài liệu này có lỗ hổng gì", "góp ý bản nháp của tôi"), even when they never say "critical thinking". Also use when the user drops a document and asks whether to trust or act on it, or asks to see their reasoning profile. Not for company-level strategic bets (strategy-board) or learning a topic through dialogue (socratic-questor).Science★ 86
- debate-practice-coachtravisjneuman/.claudeInteractive 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.Other★ 106
- narrative-buildingscdenney/open-science-skillsDrafts or audits a scientific paper's introduction: real-world motivation, evidence audit, theory-to-if-then funnel with a named estimand, bridges across experiments, and calibrated contributions. Use to write, frame, or critique an introduction.Science★ 69
- counterargumentrichard-kim-79/archora-skillsGenerates rigorous devil's advocate critiques from methodological, theoretical, and practical perspectives. Use when the user asks to challenge their own work, find weaknesses, stress-test assumptions, anticipate reviewer objections, or argue against their research claims. Run BEFORE writing a draft for stronger papers.Testing★ 50
- argument-governanceyha9806/academic-writing-toolkitBuild and audit the manuscript or research-project argument system across intended use, gaps, claims, data, results, experiment roles, contributions, innovation evidence, limitations, and contribution focus. Use when a paper, thesis chapter, review article, or research project needs an explicit argument map, evidence-fit or over/under-balance checks, analysis admission, contribution prioritisation, innovation-evidence checks, or a decision about whether the current emphasis should change; also use for Chinese requests such as 梳理研究项目、研究主线、贡献侧重、创新证据、结果是否支撑论点、主实验与辅助分析、内容或证据是否过多或过少.Science★ 50
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in