Claude Skills by human-avatar

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'.

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 reasoning applied without knowing which specific tool fits.

Maps what the audience currently believes, actually cares about, and fears before communicating — because communication fails at the receiver, not the sender. Triggers: 'model the audience', 'audience analysis', 'who am I talking to', 'what do they care about', 'why aren't they getting it'.

Audits a communication for places where the message will be lost, misread, or misunderstood — before it's sent. Triggers: 'clarity audit', 'will this be understood', 'check my message', 'edit for clarity', 'where will this be misread'.

Matches the message to the right channel and format — the same content in the wrong medium loses most of its effect. Triggers: 'which channel', 'email vs meeting', 'should this be async or sync', 'medium fit', 'how should I deliver this'.

Maps likely objections before delivering a proposal — objections that are anticipated feel addressed; objections that land as surprises derail. Triggers: 'anticipate objections', 'what will they push back on', 'steelman the opposition', 'prepare for resistance', 'objection mapping'.

Entry point for the communication toolkit. Routes to the right communication skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'communication', 'how do I say this', 'will this land', 'which channel', 'what will they push back on', 'does this make sense', or want communication help without knowing which specific tool fits.

Tests whether a stated constraint is real — distinguishing genuine limits from assumptions, habits, or politics dressed as facts. Triggers: 'is this really a constraint', 'challenge the assumption', 'who says we can't', 'is this actually fixed', 'test the constraint'.

Flips a constraint into a creative driver — uses the limit as the generative force rather than working around it. Triggers: 'invert the constraint', 'use the limitation', 'constraint as feature', 'what if this limit was the requirement'.

Finds the minimum that satisfies the actual requirement — stripping everything wanted but not needed. Triggers: 'minimum viable', 'what's the minimum', 'strip this back', 'what do we actually need', 'scope reduction', 'simplify the requirement'.

Finds paths around a fixed constraint without removing it — routing around a hard limit to reach the same goal. Triggers: 'work around this', 'given this constraint', 'path around the blocker', 'how do we do this anyway', 'constrained solution'.

Entry point for the constraint toolkit. Routes to the right constraint skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'constraint', 'given this limit', 'we can't do X', 'is this really fixed', 'use the limitation', 'minimum viable', 'how do we do this anyway', or want constraint thinking applied without knowing which specific tool fits.

Apply Edward de Bono's APC (Alternatives, Possibilities, Choices) tool to deliberately generate options before evaluating any of them. Use when the user is about to make a decision, wants more options before choosing, feels like they only see two paths, is planning something and wants to make sure they've considered all the approaches, or tends to go with the first good idea.

Surface and challenge the hidden assumptions in any problem, plan, or framing. Use when the user feels stuck despite trying multiple approaches, a problem seems intractable, a plan keeps failing for unclear reasons, something 'obvious' keeps producing unexpected results, or before using any other creative thinking tool when the problem itself might be wrongly framed. This is the prerequisite skill — run it when the ground itself might be wrong.

Run an orchestrated multi-method creative thinking sprint on a challenge. Use when the user wants to make real progress on a hard problem, says 'I need to think through this properly', wants a thorough creative exploration rather than a single technique, has a big decision or challenge and wants the full toolkit applied, or just says 'help me think through this'. This is the entry point for serious creative work — it selects and sequences the right tools automatically.

Apply Edward de Bono's Concept Fan to expand the solution space before committing to an approach. Use when the user has a goal or problem and wants to see the full range of ways to achieve it, feels locked into one solution, is evaluating options and wants to make sure they haven't missed any, or wants to think at different levels of abstraction before deciding.

Apply Edward de Bono's CAF (Consider All Factors) tool to map every relevant factor before making a decision or taking action. Use when the user is about to decide something important, wants to make sure they haven't missed anything, is planning an action and needs to think through consequences, or has been surprised by things they didn't anticipate. CAF is the pre-flight checklist for consequential decisions.

Apply Edward de Bono's lateral thinking to escape dominant patterns and generate genuinely new directions. Use when the user is stuck on a problem, wants alternatives to their current approach, says 'I keep thinking about this the same way', wants to think outside the box, or needs fresh angles on any challenge — creative, strategic, technical, or personal.

Apply Edward de Bono's OPS (Other People's Shoes) tool to genuinely think from other perspectives. Use when the user needs to understand how others will respond to a decision, wants to anticipate objections, is designing something for other people, is in a conflict or negotiation, or needs to check whether they've considered the people affected by a situation. OPS is structured empathy — not sentiment, but reasoning.

Apply Edward de Bono's Plus/Minus/Interesting (PMI) tool for balanced evaluation of any idea, proposal, plan, or decision. Use when the user wants to evaluate something fairly, is tempted to immediately accept or reject an idea, needs to think through pros and cons more carefully, or wants to avoid snap judgments. Plus/Minus/Interesting is the antidote to confirmation bias in evaluation.

Apply Edward de Bono's Provocation Operation (Po) to use deliberately absurd or impossible statements as springboards to new ideas. Use when the user wants to break out of conventional thinking, says 'let's try something radical', wants to use provocation as a creative tool, or is stuck and needs an unconventional jolt. Also trigger when the user uses the prefix 'Po:' before a statement.

Apply Edward de Bono's Random Entry technique — use an unrelated word, object, or image as a creative springboard to break out of cognitive ruts. Use when the user is stuck, wants unexpected inspiration, asks for a random creative prompt, wants to approach something from a completely fresh angle, or says they've exhausted their usual thinking. The randomness is the point — don't skip it.

Apply Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats for structured parallel thinking. Use when the user wants to think through a decision, plan, or idea from multiple angles; wants to avoid groupthink or one-dimensional analysis; is preparing for a meeting or discussion; or wants a complete map of a situation before committing. Also use when the user mentions 'devil's advocate', 'playing it safe', 'gut feeling', or wants both optimism and caution applied to the same thing.

Apply Edward de Bono's water logic for flow-based, non-judgmental exploration. Use when the user is in early-stage exploration and premature categorization is killing promising directions, wants to follow where ideas lead without forcing conclusions, is working on something open-ended where 'is this right?' is the wrong question, or needs to map possibilities before judging them. Water logic is the alternative to rock logic.

Entry point for the creativity toolkit. Routes to the right creative thinking technique based on your situation. Use when you say 'creativity', 'think creatively', 'I need fresh ideas', 'help me think differently', 'I'm stuck', or want creative help without knowing which specific tool applies. For comprehensive multi-method sessions, this runs them in sequence.

Runs a weighted multi-criteria analysis — making explicit what matters, how much, and how each option performs against it. Triggers: 'weighted decision matrix', 'multi-criteria analysis', 'help me choose between', 'compare these options', 'decision matrix'.

Ensures all real options are visible before choosing — countering the false dichotomy that limits consideration to the first two options that came to mind. Triggers: 'what are all the options', 'false dichotomy check', 'expand the option set', 'what else could we do', 'options inventory'.

Imagines the decision has been made and failed — then diagnoses why. Breaks the commitment bias that prevents honest risk assessment after a direction is chosen. Triggers: 'pre-mortem', 'imagine this failed', 'what could go wrong', 'assume this doesn't work', 'failure mode analysis'.

Categorises a decision by reversibility and applies the appropriate level of process rigour. Triggers: 'is this reversible', 'how much should I think about this', 'one-way door', 'two-way door', 'decision type', 'how committed is this'.

Entry point for the decision toolkit. Routes to the right decision skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'decision', 'help me decide', 'should I', 'which option', 'what are my choices', 'what could go wrong', 'is this reversible', or want decision help without knowing which specific tool fits.

Maps what genuinely drives different people — beyond stated reasons and job descriptions. Use when incentives seem misaligned or individual behaviour is hard to predict. TRIGGERS: 'what motivates them', 'motivation map', 'why are they behaving like this', 'what drives this person', 'understand the incentives'.

Diagnoses why people are resisting — finding what's underneath the pushback. Resistance is information, not obstruction; it always has a source. TRIGGERS: 'why are they resisting', 'diagnose the pushback', 'they won't get on board', 'people aren't buying in', 'resistance diagnosis'.

Maps what each stakeholder actually cares about underneath their stated position — because addressing the stated position while missing the real stake accomplishes nothing. TRIGGERS: 'what do they actually want', 'underlying stakes', 'what's really at stake', 'beneath the position', 'why won't they agree'.

Maps what is building and eroding trust in a relationship or situation — trust degrades silently until it fails loudly. TRIGGERS: 'trust audit', 'why don't they trust us', 'relationship health check', 'what's eroding trust', 'build trust with'.

Entry point for the emotional intelligence toolkit. Routes to the right emotional skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'emotional', 'why are they behaving like this', 'what motivates them', 'why the resistance', 'what do they really want', 'trust issues', or want emotional/interpersonal reasoning applied without knowing which specific tool fits.

Produces an honest, rigorous calibration of what you know vs. believe vs. assume vs. hope across a domain. Assigns explicit epistemic statuses to claims and flags when high-confidence claims rest on lower-confidence foundations. Draws from the rationalist tradition of explicit epistemic labeling. Use when you say 'how certain should I be', 'what do we actually know here', 'I want an honest read of our assumptions', 'separate what we know from what we're guessing', 'give me an epistemic audit'...

Analyzes what would actually justify believing a claim. Maps the justification structure (foundationalist, coherentist, reliabilist) and identifies the weakest link in the chain. Use when you say 'what would it actually take to know this', 'is this belief actually justified', 'what's the foundation for this assumption', 'we keep citing the same evidence for everything', 'I believe this but I can't say why', 'what would change my mind', or when a claim feels supported but you want to make the ...

Maps what kind of knowing is actually in play for a claim or question. Distinguishes a priori from a posteriori knowledge; propositional (knowing that) from procedural (knowing how) from acquaintance (knowing of); and knowledge sourced from perception, inference, testimony, intuition, or memory. Use when you say 'what kind of claim is this', 'is this something we can reason our way to or do we need evidence', 'they're treating this as obvious but I don't think it is', 'is this really an empir...

Identifies what can't be known and why, then clarifies what can be established within those limits and reframes the question into its answerable part. Distinguishes fundamental limits (Gödel, underdetermination, observer effects), practical limits (evidence is unavailable, destroyed, or counterfactual), and conceptual limits (the question is malformed). Use when you say 'can this even be known', 'we keep investigating and it doesn't settle', 'is this question actually answerable', 'I need to ...

Entry point for the epistemology toolkit. Routes to the right skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'what do I actually know here', 'is this knowable', 'how certain should I be', 'what would justify believing this', 'what kind of claim is this', 'am I confusing assumption with knowledge', 'what are the limits of what we can establish', or want philosophical rigor applied to questions of knowledge without knowing which specific tool fits.

Evaluate an algorithm, model, ranking system, recommendation engine, or automated decision process for discriminatory patterns and unfair outcomes. Use before deploying any system that makes decisions about people or ranks/filters/scores people. TRIGGERS: 'bias check', 'check this algorithm for bias', 'is this fair', 'fairness audit', any ML model, ranking function, scoring system, content recommendation, or automated decision that differentiates between people.

A fast, comprehensive ethics report on any decision, action, or situation — runs all five ethical frameworks in a single pass. Lighter than ethics-council (no peer review, no HTML report), heavier than ethics-impact-scan. Triggers: 'ethics check', 'quick ethics review', 'full ethics report', 'check this ethically', 'run an ethics check', any request for a complete ethical assessment without full council process.

Review a UX flow, data practice, or communication pattern to verify that user consent is genuine — informed, voluntary, and meaningful. Use during design or implementation of checkout flows, onboarding, notification settings, permissions requests, terms of service, dark patterns, or any feature where users make choices about what they share or agree to. TRIGGERS: 'consent review', 'is this dark pattern', 'check this onboarding flow', 'is this consent genuine', any UX that involves users agree...

Run any decision, feature, policy, or action through a council of 5 ethical framework advisors who independently analyze it from different moral foundations, peer-review each other's reasoning, and synthesize a final verdict. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'ethics council this', 'run the ethics council', 'ethical pressure-test', 'is this ethical', 'sanity check the ethics'. STRONG TRIGGERS: any decision with clear stakeholder harm potential, trade-offs between competing values, questions about fairness ...

Rapid multi-framework ethical assessment when something has already gone wrong — a data breach, a harmful outcome, a discriminatory incident, a policy failure, or any situation requiring an urgent ethical response. Use when the user is dealing with an active incident or has just discovered something went wrong. TRIGGERS: 'ethics triage', 'something went wrong', 'incident ethics', 'how do we handle this', any post-incident or mid-incident situation where the ethical dimensions of a response ne...

Audit a data collection, retention, or sharing decision against ethical standards. Use when the user is making decisions about what data to collect, how long to keep it, who can access it, or who it's shared with. TRIGGERS: 'audit this data decision', 'is this data practice ok', 'data ethics check', any change to data models, privacy controls, analytics instrumentation, data sharing agreements, or retention policies. Goes beyond legal compliance — evaluates whether the practice is ethical, no...

Applies Jaron Lanier's Circle of Empathy framework to determine which entities deserve moral consideration and rights. Use when questions arise about AI personhood, machine rights, robot citizenship, algorithmic agency, animal rights, or any decision about which entities belong inside or outside the circle of moral concern. Triggers: 'does this AI deserve rights?', 'should we treat this system as a person?', 'circle of empathy', 'moral consideration', 'AI personhood', 'which entities matter m...

Run a quick ethical impact assessment on a proposed feature, change, or decision before it ships. Use when the user is about to build or ship something and wants to surface who benefits, who's harmed, and at what scale — before commitments are made. TRIGGERS: 'ethics scan', 'impact check', 'who does this affect', 'is this safe to ship', any new feature proposal where stakeholder impact is unclear. Lightweight — takes minutes, not hours.

Evaluate a third-party vendor, supplier, partner, or integration against ethical standards before signing a contract or shipping their code or service. Use when considering a new supplier, SaaS tool, data provider, API integration, outsourcing arrangement, or partnership. TRIGGERS: 'vet this vendor', 'is this supplier ok', 'ethics check on this partner', 'should we use this third party', any third-party evaluation where labour practices, data handling, business model, or alignment with values...

Entry point for the ethics toolkit. Routes to the right ethical analysis skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'ethics', 'is this ethical', 'sanity check this', 'who does this affect', 'is this fair', 'something feels wrong', or want ethical reasoning applied without knowing which specific tool fits.