argument-mapping
Skill2 starsChanged 6 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Campaign for mapping argument structures — extract claims, link evidence, assess strength, synthesize positions. Produces argument graphs in the wiki vault.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- xjtulyc/awesome-rosetta-skillstheir own version, first seen Mar 17, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- xjtulyc/awesome-rosetta-skills★ 34same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository70 other files it gives its agents.
- alias-resolutionSkill
- argument-synthesisSkill
- argument-visualizationSkill
- axis-extractionSkill
- axis-validationSkill
- causal-chain-querySkill
- causal-modelingSkill
- claim-decompositionSkill
- claim-extractionSkill
- claim-page-creationSkill
- combination-enumerationSkill
- combination-mappingSkill
- concept-decompositionSkill
- concept-extractionSkill
- concept-page-creationSkill
- confidence-scoringSkill
- confidence-updateSkill
- consistency-checkingSkill
- contradiction-flaggingSkill
- counterfactual-reasoningSkill
- dimensional-analysisSkill
- dimension-discoverySkill
- dimension-page-creationSkill
- domain-scopingSkill
- edge-batch-creationSkill
- evidence-attachmentSkill
- evidence-collectionSkill
- evidence-linking-argSkill
- evidence-linkingSkill
- evidence-weighingSkill
- feedback-loop-detectionSkill
- gap-detectionSkill
- gap-prioritizationSkill
- hierarchy-constructionSkill
- hierarchy-visualizationSkill
- intervention-analysisSkill
- intervention-page-creationSkill
- knowledge-compilationSkill
- loop-documentationSkill
- matrix-exportSkill
- matrix-generationSkill
- mechanism-edge-creationSkill
- mechanism-mappingSkill
- merge-candidatesSkill
- model-gap-detectionSkill
- model-validationSkill
- novelty-scoringSkill
- ontology-buildingSkill
- ontology-exportSkill
- ontology-refinementSkill
- question-generationSkill
- rebuttal-documentationSkill
- relation-typingSkill
- seed-concept-searchSkill
- source-gatheringSkill
- strength-assessmentSkill
- strength-scoringSkill
- synthesis-reportSkill
- taxonomy-validationSkill
- validation-reportSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 47
Call context-init at campaign start
- Very specific: line 48
Call context-checkpoint after each strategy completes
- Very specific: line 49
Call knowledge-compilation after each strategy </HARD-GATE>
- Distinctive: line 55
Evidence is typed: Every evidence link specifies its relationship: supports, contradicts, qualifies, or is irrelevant.
- Distinctive: line 57
Steel-man first: Before documenting rebuttals, ensure the strongest version of each claim is represented.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Argument Mapping
Map argument structures for research domains. Extracts claims from sources, links supporting and opposing evidence, assesses argument strength, and synthesizes coherent positions from complex debates.
Manifest
| Level | Count | Skills |
| Strategy | 3 | claim-extraction, evidence-linking-arg, argument-synthesis |
| Tactic | 2 | claim-decomposition, strength-assessment |
| SOP | 6 | claim-page-creation, rebuttal-documentation, evidence-attachment, strength-scoring, argument-visualization, synthesis-report |
Budget Table
| Metric | Small | Medium | Large |
| Claims extracted | 10 | 25 | 50 |
| Evidence links created | 15 | 40 | 80 |
| Rebuttals documented | 3 | 10 | 20 |
| Strength scores assigned | 10 | 25 | 50 |
| Synthesis reports | 1 | 3 | 5 |
Strategy Sequence (Reference, Not Prescription)
- claim-extraction — identify and extract claims from source material
- evidence-linking-arg — link evidence to claims (supporting, contradicting, qualifying)
- argument-synthesis — synthesize positions from the argument graph
MCP Tools Used
vault_search— find existing claims and evidencevault_add_edge— create argument edges (supported_by, contradicts, derived_from)vault_query_graph— trace argument chainsvault_graph_stats— assess argument coveragevault_lint— validate structural integrity
Context-Management
<HARD-GATE>
- Call `context-init` at campaign start
- Call `context-checkpoint` after each strategy completes
- Call `knowledge-compilation` after each strategy
</HARD-GATE>Guiding Principles
- Claims are atomic. Each claim page states exactly one proposition. Compound claims must be decomposed.
- Evidence is typed. Every evidence link specifies its relationship: supports, contradicts, qualifies, or is irrelevant.
- Strength is earned. A claim's strength comes from the weight and diversity of its evidence, not from authority or repetition.
- Steel-man first. Before documenting rebuttals, ensure the strongest version of each claim is represented.
- Synthesis is not averaging. The synthesis report identifies which claims survive scrutiny, not a compromise between all positions.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.