s4h-aesthetic-simplicity-analysis

Name: s4h-aesthetic-simplicity-analysis
Author: human-avatar

205stars23forks

How to install s4h-aesthetic-simplicity-analysis?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-aesthetic-simplicity-analysis

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-aesthetic-simplicity-analysis

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Finds the simpler version while preserving what matters — not arbitrary reduction, but finding the core and discarding what is not it. TRIGGERS: 'find the simple version', 'simplify this', 'what's the essence', 'less but better', 'strip it back', 'what could we remove'.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Aesthetic Simplicity Analysis
2
3	Simplicity is not minimalism for its own sake — it is the clarity that emerges when
4	everything that obscures the essence has been removed. Most things accumulate layers:
5	additions made under pressure, elements that hedge against edge cases, features added
6	to satisfy someone who asked. The result is a thing that does everything adequately
7	and nothing powerfully. This skill finds the core and tests what must stay, what can
8	go, and what removal would actually cost.
9
10	---
11
12	## Your Process
13
14	Step 1: State the Thing and Its Purpose
15	What is it, and what is it supposed to do? Name the object — a strategy, product,
16	message, design, process, argument — and state its job in one sentence. If the
17	purpose isn't clear, clarifying it is the first act of simplification.
18
19	Framing check: Confirm the specific subject before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual object being analyzed and its intended purpose — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
20	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the specific object and its purpose]. Is that right?"
21	- Header: "Framing"
22	- Options:
23	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
24	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
25	- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
26
27	Step 2: Find the Essence
28	If you could keep only one thing — one idea, one element, one mechanism — and it had
29	to carry the entire weight of the purpose, what would it be? State this as one
30	sentence. This is the essence. Everything else in the analysis flows from whether
31	it serves this or doesn't.
32
33	Step 3: Classify Each Element
34	Go through every component or layer. Assign each one of three classifications:
35	- Essence — it is the core, or it expresses the core directly and powerfully
36	- Supporting the essence — it helps the core do its job; without it the
37	essence is harder to access or less effective
38	- Obscuring the essence — it dilutes the core, competes with it for attention,
39	or adds noise that the reader or user must filter out to reach what matters
40
41	Step 4: Remove and Reduce
42	Eliminate everything classified as obscuring. Reduce everything classified as
43	supporting to the minimum required for the essence to land clearly. Each reduction
44	is a decision — name what it costs and why that cost is acceptable.
45
46	Step 5: Test with What Remains
47	With the reduced set: can the essence be felt clearly? Does the version with less
48	do the original job? If not, something was misclassified — a supporting element was
49	actually doing more work than was visible. Revise and keep it.
50
51	Step 6: Name What Was Lost
52	What was removed, and what did each removal cost? Some removals are free — the
53	element was noise that looked like signal. Some involve real trade-offs — the
54	removed element served a secondary purpose worth acknowledging even if not worth
55	keeping.
56
57	---
58
59	## Human Check-in
60
61	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:
62
63	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
64	- Header: "Scope"
65	- Options:
66	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
67	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
68	- Removals only — What can be cut while preserving what matters
69	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
70
71	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
72
73	## Output Format
74
75	Essence: [one sentence — the irreducible core of what this thing is and does]
76
77	Element Classification
78
79	\| Element \| Classification \| Rationale \|
80	\|---\|---\|---\|
81	\| [component] \| [essence / supporting / obscuring] \| [why — what it does for the core] \|
82
83	Simplified Version: [what remains after removal and reduction]
84
85	What Was Lost
86
87	\| Removed Element \| What It Did \| Acceptable Loss? \|
88	\|---\|---\|---\|
89	\| [element] \| [secondary function] \| [yes — free / yes — acceptable trade-off / no — reclassify] \|
90
91	Verdict: Does the simplified version deliver the essence clearly?
92	[yes / partial — state what's still competing / no — revise classification]
93
94	---
95
96	## Notes
97
98	The goal is not the shortest version but the clearest. A long thing can be simple if
99	every part serves the essence. A short thing can be incoherent if it's just been cut
100	without finding the core first. Simplicity is achieved when adding anything would

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

s4h-aesthetic-simplicity-analysis

205stars23forks

View on GitHub

How to install s4h-aesthetic-simplicity-analysis?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-aesthetic-simplicity-analysis

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-aesthetic-simplicity-analysis

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Aesthetic Simplicity Analysis
2
3	Simplicity is not minimalism for its own sake — it is the clarity that emerges when
4	everything that obscures the essence has been removed. Most things accumulate layers:
5	additions made under pressure, elements that hedge against edge cases, features added
6	to satisfy someone who asked. The result is a thing that does everything adequately
7	and nothing powerfully. This skill finds the core and tests what must stay, what can
8	go, and what removal would actually cost.
9
10	---
11
12	## Your Process
13
14	Step 1: State the Thing and Its Purpose
15	What is it, and what is it supposed to do? Name the object — a strategy, product,
16	message, design, process, argument — and state its job in one sentence. If the
17	purpose isn't clear, clarifying it is the first act of simplification.
18
19	Framing check: Confirm the specific subject before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual object being analyzed and its intended purpose — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
20	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the specific object and its purpose]. Is that right?"
21	- Header: "Framing"
22	- Options:
23	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
24	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
25	- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
26
27	Step 2: Find the Essence
28	If you could keep only one thing — one idea, one element, one mechanism — and it had
29	to carry the entire weight of the purpose, what would it be? State this as one
30	sentence. This is the essence. Everything else in the analysis flows from whether
31	it serves this or doesn't.
32
33	Step 3: Classify Each Element
34	Go through every component or layer. Assign each one of three classifications:
35	- Essence — it is the core, or it expresses the core directly and powerfully
36	- Supporting the essence — it helps the core do its job; without it the
37	essence is harder to access or less effective
38	- Obscuring the essence — it dilutes the core, competes with it for attention,
39	or adds noise that the reader or user must filter out to reach what matters
40
41	Step 4: Remove and Reduce
42	Eliminate everything classified as obscuring. Reduce everything classified as
43	supporting to the minimum required for the essence to land clearly. Each reduction
44	is a decision — name what it costs and why that cost is acceptable.
45
46	Step 5: Test with What Remains
47	With the reduced set: can the essence be felt clearly? Does the version with less
48	do the original job? If not, something was misclassified — a supporting element was
49	actually doing more work than was visible. Revise and keep it.
50
51	Step 6: Name What Was Lost
52	What was removed, and what did each removal cost? Some removals are free — the
53	element was noise that looked like signal. Some involve real trade-offs — the
54	removed element served a secondary purpose worth acknowledging even if not worth
55	keeping.
56
57	---
58
59	## Human Check-in
60
61	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:
62
63	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
64	- Header: "Scope"
65	- Options:
66	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
67	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
68	- Removals only — What can be cut while preserving what matters
69	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
70
71	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
72
73	## Output Format
74
75	Essence: [one sentence — the irreducible core of what this thing is and does]
76
77	Element Classification
78
79	\| Element \| Classification \| Rationale \|
80	\|---\|---\|---\|
81	\| [component] \| [essence / supporting / obscuring] \| [why — what it does for the core] \|
82
83	Simplified Version: [what remains after removal and reduction]
84
85	What Was Lost
86
87	\| Removed Element \| What It Did \| Acceptable Loss? \|
88	\|---\|---\|---\|
89	\| [element] \| [secondary function] \| [yes — free / yes — acceptable trade-off / no — reclassify] \|
90
91	Verdict: Does the simplified version deliver the essence clearly?
92	[yes / partial — state what's still competing / no — revise classification]
93
94	---
95
96	## Notes
97
98	The goal is not the shortest version but the clearest. A long thing can be simple if
99	every part serves the essence. A short thing can be incoherent if it's just been cut
100	without finding the core first. Simplicity is achieved when adding anything would

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type