mcpField
S
s4h-logic-argument-validation

s4h-logic-argument-validation

github.com/human-avatarProductivity23638 installsUpdated 15w ago
Repository

About s4h-logic-argument-validation

A logic skill for checking whether an argument’s premises support its conclusion and for identifying reasoning gaps and fallacies. It makes the argument explicit before assessing its structure and stating the weakest point.

Key features

  1. 01Extract premises and conclusion
  2. 02Assess premise status and relevance
  3. 03Test whether the inference follows
  4. 04Check for common fallacies
  5. 05State a verdict and possible repairs

Use cases

  1. 01Review a proposal’s supporting argument
  2. 02Check whether evidence supports a conclusion
  3. 03Find reasoning gaps before presenting a claim

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-logic-argument-validation

After installing, type/s4h-logic-argument-validationin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

Logic Argument Validation

An argument can sound compelling while the reasoning is broken. Confident language, plausible premises, a conclusion that feels right — none of these guarantee the argument actually holds. This skill validates the structure: do the premises support the conclusion, and is the reasoning free of fallacies?

Your Process

Step 1: Extract the argument structure Before evaluating, make the argument explicit:

  • Premises: what claims is the argument built on?
  • Conclusion: what is it trying to prove?
  • Reasoning: what's the logical path from premises to conclusion?

Restate this clearly before proceeding. Often the weakest point becomes obvious once the structure is explicit.

Framing check: Confirm the argument being examined and the claim at stake before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual argument and the conclusion it is trying to establish — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:

  • Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the argument and its conclusion]. Is that right?"
  • Header: "Framing"
  • Options:
    • Yes — proceed — framing is correct
    • Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
    • Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding

Step 2: Test premise soundness For each premise:

  • Is it stated as fact? Is it actually established, assumed, or contested?
  • Is it relevant to the conclusion, or is it doing rhetorical work without logical work?
  • Are there hidden premises — unstated assumptions the argument silently depends on?

Step 3: Test the inference Does the conclusion actually follow from the premises, even if the premises are true? Common inference failures:

  • The premises support a weaker version of the conclusion than the one being claimed
  • The reasoning jumps over a step that would need its own justification
  • The conclusion is true but for reasons the premises don't establish

Step 4: Check for fallacies Scan for common fallacies. Name them specifically if found:

FallacyWhat it looks like
Ad hominemAttacking the source rather than the argument
Straw manMisrepresenting a position to make it easier to refute
False dichotomyPresenting two options when more exist
Circular reasoningThe conclusion is smuggled into the premises
Slippery slopeAssuming a chain of consequences without justifying each step
Appeal to authorityCiting authority as a substitute for evidence
Hasty generalisationDrawing broad conclusions from insufficient cases
Post hocAssuming causation from correlation or sequence
EquivocationUsing the same word in two different senses

Step 5: Verdict

Human Check-in

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:

  • Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
  • Header: "Scope"
  • Options:
    • Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
    • Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
    • Validity test only — Skip premise truth assessment, test whether the conclusion follows from what's given
    • Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing

Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.

Output Format

Argument: [Premises / Conclusion restated explicitly]

Premise Assessment

PremiseStatusIssue
[premise]✅ Established / ⚠️ Assumed / ❌ Contested[note]

Inference Assessment [Does the conclusion follow? Where does the chain hold or break?]

Fallacies Detected

  • [Fallacy name]: [specific example from the argument] — or "None detected"

Verdict [Does the argument hold? What is the specific weakest point?]

What would strengthen it

  • [Specific fix — evidence needed, premise to qualify, step to make explicit]

Notes

A broken argument isn't necessarily a wrong conclusion. The conclusion might be correct while the reasoning that supports it is flawed. Flag both: the structural problem and whether the conclusion still seems defensible by other means.

What's Next

After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:

  • Question: "Argument validated. What's next?"
  • Header: "Next"
  • Options:
    • /s4h-logic-fixer — Repair the invalid inferences found
    • /s4h-ethics-check — Check whether a valid argument is also ethically sound
    • /s4h-communication-objection-mapping — Map how others will challenge this argument
    • Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far

Comments

Markdown supported