Contrast Framing

---
name: contrast-framing
description: "Use when sequencing offers, pricing tiers, proposals, negotiation anchors, product demos, before-after comparisons, concession framing, reason-giving, request wording, or comparative messaging where contrast effects or shallow reasons may distort decisions."
category: business-and-finance
source_repo: hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins
source_path: "plugins/LVTD-LLC/skills/skills/contrast-framing/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins/blob/HEAD/plugins/LVTD-LLC/skills/skills/contrast-framing/SKILL.md
---


# Contrast Framing

Frame comparisons so users understand relative value without being misled by sequencing. Contrast and reason-giving are useful when they clarify differences, not when they exploit automatic response.

## Quick Start

1. Read `guidelines.md` to choose the smallest useful reference set.
2. Load `references/contrast/knowledge.md` for concepts and `references/contrast/rules.md` for operating rules.
3. Use `workflows/sequence-comparisons.md` for repeatable tasks.
4. For audits, surface both the active influence cue and the ethical rewrite.

## Contents

| File | Purpose |
| --- | --- |
| references/contrast/knowledge.md | Core concepts and source-grounded definitions |
| references/contrast/rules.md | Rules, boundaries, and practical guidelines |
| references/contrast/examples.md | Bad/better examples for applied situations |
| references/contrast/smells.md | Red flags and anti-patterns to detect |
| references/contrast/checklist.md | Fast review checklist |
| workflows/sequence-comparisons.md | Design offer and request sequencing that clarifies value without distorting judgment. |

## Operating Principles

- Use only honest evidence. Do not invent popularity, scarcity, credentials, endorsements, or social connection.
- Separate helping a good decision from pushing a shortcut response. If the cue is counterfeit, treat it as a red flag.
- When rewriting, preserve user agency: add context, alternatives, and enough time to decide when stakes are meaningful.

## Output Pattern

1. **Diagnosis** - name the influence principle or cue.
2. **Evidence Check** - state what proof supports or is missing from the cue.
3. **Risk** - explain manipulation, trust, or decision-quality risk.
4. **Rewrite or Recommendation** - provide an ethical alternative.

## Validation

Use the prompts in `evals/evals.json` as smoke tests. A good result identifies the relevant Influence principle, preserves user agency, and avoids fabricated evidence or coercive pressure.

---

**Source:** [`hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins`](https://github.com/hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins) → `plugins/LVTD-LLC/skills/skills/contrast-framing/SKILL.md`