s4h-analogy-structure-mapping

Name: s4h-analogy-structure-mapping
Author: human-avatar

205stars23forks

How to install s4h-analogy-structure-mapping?

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

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

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Identifies the deep structural correspondence between two situations — genuine isomorphism vs superficial similarity. Triggers: 'does this analogy hold', 'map the structure', 'is this really like that', 'structural similarity', 'test the comparison'.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Analogy Structure Mapping
2
3	Analogies are persuasive but often wrong. The surface similarity that makes a comparison
4	feel apt can obscure structural differences that make it invalid. This skill maps the deep
5	structure of both situations and checks correspondence element by element — distinguishing
6	genuine isomorphism (same structure, different content) from superficial similarity (same
7	surface, different structure).
8
9	---
10
11	## Your Process
12
13	Step 1: State the Two Situations
14	Write Situation A and Situation B clearly. State the analogy as claimed: "A is like B
15	because..."
16
17	Framing check: Confirm the specific analogy before continuing. State what you've identified — the two situations being compared and the analogical claim linking them — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
18	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the two situations and the claimed analogy]. Is that right?"
19	- Header: "Framing"
20	- Options:
21	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
22	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
23	- Reframe — different situations or analogy than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
24
25	Step 2: Extract Structure of Each
26	For each situation independently, map: key actors, their relationships, the dynamics
27	(what drives change), the constraints (what limits action), and the goals (what success
28	looks like). Do this for each situation before comparing — comparison before extraction
29	introduces bias.
30
31	Step 3: Map Elements A to B
32	For each structural element in A, identify the corresponding element in B. State the
33	mapping explicitly: "In A, X plays the role of Y in B."
34
35	Step 4: Classify Each Mapped Pair
36	For each mapped pair: is the correspondence genuine (same structural role, same
37	relationship type, same dynamics) or superficial (same label or surface feature, different
38	structural role)?
39
40	Step 5: Find Where the Mapping Breaks
41	Every analogy breaks somewhere — this is not a failure, it is where the analysis becomes
42	useful. Which differences are structurally significant? Which make the analogy unreliable
43	for the specific prediction or decision being made?
44
45	Step 6: State Valid Predictions and Invalid Ones
46	Based on where the mapping holds and where it breaks, state what the analogy validly
47	predicts and what it cannot be relied upon to predict.
48
49	---
50
51	## Human Check-in
52
53	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:
54
55	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
56	- Header: "Scope"
57	- Options:
58	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
59	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
60	- Structural differences only — Where the two situations diverge, not where they align
61	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
62
63	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
64
65	## Output Format
66
67	Situation A structure: [actors / relationships / dynamics / constraints / goals]
68	Situation B structure: [actors / relationships / dynamics / constraints / goals]
69
70	Element mapping:
71
72	\| Element in A \| Corresponding element in B \| Genuine / Superficial \| Reason \|
73	\|-------------\|---------------------------\|----------------------\|--------\|
74	\| \| \| \| \|
75	\| \| \| \| \|
76
77	Where the mapping breaks:
78	> [Specific structural differences and why they matter]
79
80	Valid predictions (analogy holds):
81	> [What can be reliably inferred from B about A]
82
83	Invalid predictions (analogy breaks):
84	> [What cannot be inferred — where relying on the analogy would mislead]
85
86	---
87
88	## Notes
89
90	Genuine structural correspondence requires that the relationship between elements matches —
91	not just that individual elements can be paired. Two things can share every node and differ
92	entirely on the edges that connect them.
93
94	---
95
96	## What's Next
97
98	After delivering this output, use `AskUserQuestion` to offer the next move:
99
100	- Question: "Structure mapped. What's next?"
101	- Header: "Next"
102	- Options:
103	- `/s4h-logic-check` — Validate that the structural mapping holds
104	- `/s4h-analogy-domain-transfer` — Use the structure map to guide a domain transfer
105	- `/s4h-systems-feedback-mapping` — Check if the structure reveals feedback dynamics
106	- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

s4h-analogy-structure-mapping

205stars23forks

View on GitHub

How to install s4h-analogy-structure-mapping?

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

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

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Analogy Structure Mapping
2
3	Analogies are persuasive but often wrong. The surface similarity that makes a comparison
4	feel apt can obscure structural differences that make it invalid. This skill maps the deep
5	structure of both situations and checks correspondence element by element — distinguishing
6	genuine isomorphism (same structure, different content) from superficial similarity (same
7	surface, different structure).
8
9	---
10
11	## Your Process
12
13	Step 1: State the Two Situations
14	Write Situation A and Situation B clearly. State the analogy as claimed: "A is like B
15	because..."
16
17	Framing check: Confirm the specific analogy before continuing. State what you've identified — the two situations being compared and the analogical claim linking them — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
18	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the two situations and the claimed analogy]. Is that right?"
19	- Header: "Framing"
20	- Options:
21	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
22	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
23	- Reframe — different situations or analogy than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
24
25	Step 2: Extract Structure of Each
26	For each situation independently, map: key actors, their relationships, the dynamics
27	(what drives change), the constraints (what limits action), and the goals (what success
28	looks like). Do this for each situation before comparing — comparison before extraction
29	introduces bias.
30
31	Step 3: Map Elements A to B
32	For each structural element in A, identify the corresponding element in B. State the
33	mapping explicitly: "In A, X plays the role of Y in B."
34
35	Step 4: Classify Each Mapped Pair
36	For each mapped pair: is the correspondence genuine (same structural role, same
37	relationship type, same dynamics) or superficial (same label or surface feature, different
38	structural role)?
39
40	Step 5: Find Where the Mapping Breaks
41	Every analogy breaks somewhere — this is not a failure, it is where the analysis becomes
42	useful. Which differences are structurally significant? Which make the analogy unreliable
43	for the specific prediction or decision being made?
44
45	Step 6: State Valid Predictions and Invalid Ones
46	Based on where the mapping holds and where it breaks, state what the analogy validly
47	predicts and what it cannot be relied upon to predict.
48
49	---
50
51	## Human Check-in
52
53	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:
54
55	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
56	- Header: "Scope"
57	- Options:
58	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
59	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
60	- Structural differences only — Where the two situations diverge, not where they align
61	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
62
63	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
64
65	## Output Format
66
67	Situation A structure: [actors / relationships / dynamics / constraints / goals]
68	Situation B structure: [actors / relationships / dynamics / constraints / goals]
69
70	Element mapping:
71
72	\| Element in A \| Corresponding element in B \| Genuine / Superficial \| Reason \|
73	\|-------------\|---------------------------\|----------------------\|--------\|
74	\| \| \| \| \|
75	\| \| \| \| \|
76
77	Where the mapping breaks:
78	> [Specific structural differences and why they matter]
79
80	Valid predictions (analogy holds):
81	> [What can be reliably inferred from B about A]
82
83	Invalid predictions (analogy breaks):
84	> [What cannot be inferred — where relying on the analogy would mislead]
85
86	---
87
88	## Notes
89
90	Genuine structural correspondence requires that the relationship between elements matches —
91	not just that individual elements can be paired. Two things can share every node and differ
92	entirely on the edges that connect them.
93
94	---
95
96	## What's Next
97
98	After delivering this output, use `AskUserQuestion` to offer the next move:
99
100	- Question: "Structure mapped. What's next?"
101	- Header: "Next"
102	- Options:
103	- `/s4h-logic-check` — Validate that the structural mapping holds
104	- `/s4h-analogy-domain-transfer` — Use the structure map to guide a domain transfer
105	- `/s4h-systems-feedback-mapping` — Check if the structure reveals feedback dynamics
106	- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type