s4h-analogy

Name: s4h-analogy
Author: human-avatar

205stars23forks

How to install s4h-analogy?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-analogy

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-analogy

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Entry point for the analogy toolkit. Routes to the right analogy skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'analogy', 'is this like that', 'find a comparison', 'import a solution from elsewhere', 'fresh eyes on this', 'where does this metaphor break', or want analogical rea

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Analogy
2
3	Applies analogical reasoning to any problem. Diagnoses what kind of analogy work is needed and applies the right tool.
4
5	## Which tool fits
6
7	\| You need to... \| Tool \|
8	\|---\|---\|
9	\| Find where an existing analogy or metaphor breaks down \| boundary-testing \|
10	\| Import solutions from a completely different domain \| domain-transfer \|
11	\| Approach a problem through a different field's lens \| perspective-shifting \|
12	\| Test the structural correspondence between two situations \| structure-mapping \|
13
14	## Routing Decision
15
16	- Already using an analogy and want to stress-test it → boundary-testing
17	- Stuck on a problem, want to find who's solved something like it elsewhere → domain-transfer
18	- Need fresh eyes from an expert in a different field → perspective-shifting
19	- Want to know if two situations are genuinely structurally similar → structure-mapping
20	- Unclear → structure-mapping first (establishing the analogy rigorously), then boundary-testing (finding where it fails)
21
22	Framing check: Confirm the specific analogy situation before routing. State what you've identified — the analogy or problem being examined and the goal (stress-test, import solutions, shift perspective, or validate structure) — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
23	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the analogy situation and goal]. Is that right?"
24	- Header: "Framing"
25	- Options:
26	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
27	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
28	- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
29
30	---
31
32	## Confirm Direction
33
34	After diagnosing which tool fits, use the `AskUserQuestion` tool to confirm direction. Construct the question dynamically to include your diagnosis:
35
36	- Question: "My read: [diagnosed tool] — [one sentence on why it fits]. How would you like to proceed?"
37	- Header: "Direction"
38	- Options:
39	- Yes, run that tool — Execute the diagnosed skill immediately using the context already provided
40	- Show all options — List every skill in this category with one-line descriptions
41	- Quick version — Run a lighter-weight alternative if one exists for this situation
42	- Re-diagnose — Revisit the situation description for a different read
43
44	Proceed based on their selection.
45
46	---
47
48	## Boundary Testing
49
50	Finds where an analogy breaks down before it's relied upon.
51
52	Name the analogy explicitly: A is like B because [shared properties]. Now systematically test each dimension of the comparison. For each shared property: does it actually hold? What differences exist? Find the dimension where the analogy fails in a way that matters for the decision at hand. Analogies fail silently — the damage happens when decisions are made on a mapping that doesn't hold in the relevant dimension.
53
54	Output: Analogy map (what holds, what doesn't), the specific dimension of failure, and what decisions should not rely on this analogy.
55
56	---
57
58	## Domain Transfer
59
60	Imports solutions from unrelated domains by finding structural similarities.
61
62	Name the core structure of the problem: what kind of challenge is this underneath the surface details? Search for domains that have solved structurally similar problems — often in completely unrelated fields (biology for network design, military strategy for resource constraints, jazz for improvisational systems). For each candidate domain: what was the solution? How does it map back?
63
64	Output: Core problem structure, candidate domains with solved analogues, and specific solutions mapped back to the original problem.
65
66	---
67
68	## Perspective Shifting
69
70	Approaches a problem through a completely different field's lens.
71
72	Name the home domain — the expertise lens being applied by default. Now select 2-3 radically different fields: what would a [biologist / game designer / urban planner / etc.] see when looking at this? Apply each lens genuinely, not superficially. The goal is to surface assumptions invisible from inside the home domain.
73
74	Output: Per-lens analysis — what each field notices, what assumptions it challenges, what solutions it suggests that the home domain wouldn't.
75
76	---
77
78	## Structure Mapping
79
80	Identifies the deep structural correspondence between two situations.
81
82	List the elements of situation A. List the elements of situation B. For each element in A: does a corresponding element exist in B? Are the relationships between elements preserved? Test whether the mapping is genuine isomorphism or just surface similarity. Surface similarity fails on deeper structu

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

s4h-analogy

205stars23forks

View on GitHub

How to install s4h-analogy?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-analogy

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-analogy

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Analogy
2
3	Applies analogical reasoning to any problem. Diagnoses what kind of analogy work is needed and applies the right tool.
4
5	## Which tool fits
6
7	\| You need to... \| Tool \|
8	\|---\|---\|
9	\| Find where an existing analogy or metaphor breaks down \| boundary-testing \|
10	\| Import solutions from a completely different domain \| domain-transfer \|
11	\| Approach a problem through a different field's lens \| perspective-shifting \|
12	\| Test the structural correspondence between two situations \| structure-mapping \|
13
14	## Routing Decision
15
16	- Already using an analogy and want to stress-test it → boundary-testing
17	- Stuck on a problem, want to find who's solved something like it elsewhere → domain-transfer
18	- Need fresh eyes from an expert in a different field → perspective-shifting
19	- Want to know if two situations are genuinely structurally similar → structure-mapping
20	- Unclear → structure-mapping first (establishing the analogy rigorously), then boundary-testing (finding where it fails)
21
22	Framing check: Confirm the specific analogy situation before routing. State what you've identified — the analogy or problem being examined and the goal (stress-test, import solutions, shift perspective, or validate structure) — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
23	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the analogy situation and goal]. Is that right?"
24	- Header: "Framing"
25	- Options:
26	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
27	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
28	- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
29
30	---
31
32	## Confirm Direction
33
34	After diagnosing which tool fits, use the `AskUserQuestion` tool to confirm direction. Construct the question dynamically to include your diagnosis:
35
36	- Question: "My read: [diagnosed tool] — [one sentence on why it fits]. How would you like to proceed?"
37	- Header: "Direction"
38	- Options:
39	- Yes, run that tool — Execute the diagnosed skill immediately using the context already provided
40	- Show all options — List every skill in this category with one-line descriptions
41	- Quick version — Run a lighter-weight alternative if one exists for this situation
42	- Re-diagnose — Revisit the situation description for a different read
43
44	Proceed based on their selection.
45
46	---
47
48	## Boundary Testing
49
50	Finds where an analogy breaks down before it's relied upon.
51
52	Name the analogy explicitly: A is like B because [shared properties]. Now systematically test each dimension of the comparison. For each shared property: does it actually hold? What differences exist? Find the dimension where the analogy fails in a way that matters for the decision at hand. Analogies fail silently — the damage happens when decisions are made on a mapping that doesn't hold in the relevant dimension.
53
54	Output: Analogy map (what holds, what doesn't), the specific dimension of failure, and what decisions should not rely on this analogy.
55
56	---
57
58	## Domain Transfer
59
60	Imports solutions from unrelated domains by finding structural similarities.
61
62	Name the core structure of the problem: what kind of challenge is this underneath the surface details? Search for domains that have solved structurally similar problems — often in completely unrelated fields (biology for network design, military strategy for resource constraints, jazz for improvisational systems). For each candidate domain: what was the solution? How does it map back?
63
64	Output: Core problem structure, candidate domains with solved analogues, and specific solutions mapped back to the original problem.
65
66	---
67
68	## Perspective Shifting
69
70	Approaches a problem through a completely different field's lens.
71
72	Name the home domain — the expertise lens being applied by default. Now select 2-3 radically different fields: what would a [biologist / game designer / urban planner / etc.] see when looking at this? Apply each lens genuinely, not superficially. The goal is to surface assumptions invisible from inside the home domain.
73
74	Output: Per-lens analysis — what each field notices, what assumptions it challenges, what solutions it suggests that the home domain wouldn't.
75
76	---
77
78	## Structure Mapping
79
80	Identifies the deep structural correspondence between two situations.
81
82	List the elements of situation A. List the elements of situation B. For each element in A: does a corresponding element exist in B? Are the relationships between elements preserved? Test whether the mapping is genuine isomorphism or just surface similarity. Surface similarity fails on deeper structu

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type