@human-avatar/skills-for-humanity 1.0.0

package/skills/historical-precedent-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+---
+name: historical-precedent-analysis
+description: "Finds and applies genuinely similar historical situations to inform a current decision — distinguishing true precedents from superficial analogies. TRIGGERS: 'historical precedent', 'has this happened before', 'what does history say', 'find a precedent', 'what did others do in this situation'."
+---
+
+# Historical Precedent Analysis
+
+History doesn't repeat — but structures do. The error is searching for surface
+similarity (same industry, same technology, same geography) and missing structural
+similarity (same underlying dynamics, same constraint set, same incentive conflicts).
+Superficial precedents produce false confidence. Structural precedents produce genuine
+insight. This skill finds the real ones.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Abstract the Situation**
+Strip away domain-specific language and surface details. What is the underlying
+structural pattern? Describe it in terms that could apply across industries and eras:
+a new entrant facing incumbents with switching-cost moats; a coalition with aligned
+goals but divergent interests trying to coordinate; a technology displacing a
+profession whose members control the adoption decision. State the situation in these
+structural terms — this is what you'll search for in history.
+
+**Step 2: Search for Structural Precedents**
+Deliberately look outside the obvious domain. The most obvious precedent (same
+industry, earlier decade) usually has the most surface similarity and the least
+structural insight — the surface differences are visible but the structural
+similarities are already assumed. Search across industries, eras, and scales for
+situations with the same underlying dynamics. Find 2-3 with the strongest structural
+match.
+
+**Step 3: Describe Each Precedent**
+For each: what was the specific situation, what approaches were tried, what was the
+outcome? Be concrete — vague historical reference ("like the industrial revolution")
+is not a precedent. A precedent is a specific case with specific decisions and
+specific results.
+
+**Step 4: Structural Mapping**
+For each precedent: where does the structural similarity hold most clearly? Where
+does it break down? What are the key variables that differ between the historical
+case and the current situation — and how might those differences change what the
+precedent implies?
+
+**Step 5: Extract the Lesson**
+Not "do what they did" — that's surface imitation that ignores structural
+differences. The lesson is: what does their experience suggest matters most in this
+type of situation? What was the decisive variable? What would have changed the
+outcome if it had been different?
+
+---
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Closest precedent only** — the single most structurally similar historical case, fully developed
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output Format
+
+**Situation (Abstracted):** [structural description in domain-neutral terms]
+
+**Precedents**
+
+| Precedent | What/When | What Was Tried | Outcome |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| [descriptive name] | [specific context] | [approach taken] | [what happened] |
+
+**Structural Mapping**
+
+| Precedent | Where It Maps | Where It Diverges | Key Differing Variables |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| [name] | [structural overlap] | [structural gap] | [variables that differ] |
+
+**Lesson:** [the transferable principle — the underlying rule, stated without
+domain-specific language]
+
+**Caveats:** [where the precedent fails to apply and what would need to be different
+for it to hold]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+The strongest precedent is often the most surprising one — from a completely
+different domain that shares the underlying dynamics. Don't default to the obvious
+comparison within the same industry. The abstractions done in Step 1 determine the
+quality of everything that follows — spend time there.

package/skills/human/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+---
+name: human
+description: "Global routing skill. Selects the best thinking tool from all 131 skills across 23 categories based on a plain-language description of any situation. Use when you say 'help me think through this', 'which skill should I use', 'I need to figure out what to do', 'where do I start', or any time you want structured thinking but aren't sure which category applies. Diagnoses the thinking challenge type and presents 3–4 best-fit skills as lettered options — user picks one and it executes immediately."
+---
+
+# Human
+
+The master routing skill. You describe your situation in plain English. This skill diagnoses what kind of thinking challenge you're facing, identifies the best 3–4 tools across all 23 categories, and presents them as lettered options. You pick one and it runs — no second command needed.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+### Step 1: Intake
+
+If the user hasn't described their situation yet, ask:
+
+> What are you trying to figure out? Describe the situation in 1–3 sentences.
+
+Wait for their response before diagnosing.
+
+---
+
+### Step 2: Diagnose the Challenge Type
+
+Read the situation and classify it against these five clusters:
+
+**Think Sharper** — The problem is *reasoning quality*. Something needs validating, pressure-testing, or repairing. The person is asking: is this right? Will this work? What am I missing?
+→ Categories: logic, probability, decision, constraint, game-theory
+
+**Think Differently** — The problem is *fixation or lack of options*. The person is stuck, has only one idea, needs fresh directions, or needs to break out of a dominant frame.
+→ Categories: creativity, analogy, play
+
+**Think About People** — The problem is *human dynamics*. Other people's motivations, reactions, values, or relationships are central. The question involves what someone wants, fears, or will do.
+→ Categories: communication, social, emotional, ethics, identity, narrative, writing
+
+**Think in Time & Systems** — The problem involves *dynamics, patterns, or leverage*. Things are changing over time, part of a larger system, or connected to history. The question is about causes, cycles, or where to intervene.
+→ Categories: systems, temporal, historical, resource, strategy
+
+**See More Clearly** — The problem is *perception before analysis*. Something needs to be observed more carefully before it can be assessed. The question is about what's actually there.
+→ Categories: aesthetic, sensory
+
+---
+
+### Step 3: Identify 3–4 Best-Fit Skills
+
+Within the most relevant cluster, identify the 2–4 skills that best match the specific situation. Use the routing guide below.
+
+Prioritize skills that match the **type of output** the person needs:
+- They need a verdict → validation/audit skills (logic-check, ethics-check, constraint-hardness-testing)
+- They need options → generation skills (creativity-alternatives, decision-option-mapping, constraint-workaround-mapping)
+- They need to understand a person → people skills (emotional-motivation-mapping, social-power-mapping, communication-audience-modeling)
+- They need to understand a system → systems skills (systems-leverage-analysis, systems-feedback-mapping)
+- They need to decide → decision skills (decision-premortem-analysis, decision-criteria-weighting)
+- They need to fix something → repair skills (logic-fixer, constraint-scope-reduction)
+
+---
+
+### Step 4: Present Options
+
+Present your diagnosis and the options clearly:
+
+> Here's what I think you need. Which fits your situation best?
+>
+> **A) [Skill name]** — [one sentence on why this fits and what it produces]
+> **B) [Skill name]** — [one sentence on why this fits and what it produces]
+> **C) [Skill name]** — [one sentence on why this fits and what it produces]
+> **D) Show me more options** — list all skills in the [most relevant category] category
+
+Wait for their selection.
+
+---
+
+### Step 5: Execute
+
+When the user picks an option:
+- **A, B, or C:** Run the selected skill immediately. Do not ask them to type another command. Use the context already gathered as the input.
+- **D:** Show the full skill table for the most relevant category. Let them pick from the complete list, then execute.
+
+If the person's situation seems to span two clusters (e.g., "I need to decide something but I also want to think ethically about it"), present skills from both. Lead with the more important one.
+
+---
+
+## Routing Guide
+
+Use this table to narrow from situation to skill. It covers the most common challenge types — use judgment for everything else.
+
+| Situation | Top skills to offer |
+|---|---|
+| "Is this argument / plan / reasoning sound?" | logic-check, logic-argument-validation |
+| "I need to make a decision" | decision-premortem-analysis, decision-criteria-weighting, decision-option-mapping |
+| "What could go wrong?" | decision-premortem-analysis, logic-fixer, constraint-hardness-testing |
+| "I'm stuck, I keep coming back to the same idea" | creativity-lateral-thinking, creativity-assumption-excavator |
+| "I need more / better options" | creativity-alternatives, creativity-concept-fan, decision-option-mapping |
+| "How likely is this?" | probability-scenario-weighting, probability-confidence-calibration |
+| "Is this ethical?" | ethics-check, ethics-council, ethics-impact-scan |
+| "Who does this affect and how?" | ethics-empathy-circle, emotional-stakes-mapping, social-power-mapping |
+| "Why is this person / team behaving this way?" | emotional-motivation-mapping, emotional-resistance-diagnosis, social-incentive-analysis |
+| "How do I communicate this?" | communication-audience-modeling, communication-clarity-audit, communication-objection-mapping |
+| "What's the leverage point in this system?" | systems-leverage-analysis, systems-feedback-mapping |
+| "Has this happened before?" | historical-precedent-analysis, historical-failure-analysis |
+| "Is this constraint real or assumed?" | constraint-hardness-testing, constraint-rule-inversion |
+| "Is this decision reversible?" | decision-reversibility-analysis |
+| "Something feels off about this design / plan" | aesthetic-coherence-check, logic-consistency-check, aesthetic-elegance-testing |
+| "What am I not seeing?" | sensory-structured-observation, sensory-detail-mining, creativity-assumption-excavator |
+| "Is this on-mission? Are we being consistent?" | identity-mission-alignment, identity-values-clarification |
+| "What's the story here / how do I frame this?" | narrative-frame-analysis, narrative-structure-mapping |
+| "Where should we put our resources?" | resource-leverage-mapping, resource-bottleneck-analysis |
+| "What will this look like in 5 years?" | temporal-horizon-mapping, temporal-futures-mapping |
+| "Help me with my writing / fix my story / review this document" | **`/writing`**, writing-restructure, writing-argument |
+| "My character feels flat / the plot isn't working / the scene is off" | writing-character-development, writing-plot-structure, writing-scene-construction |
+| "Edit this / tighten this / fix the structure or tone" | writing-restructure, writing-line-editing, writing-tone-alignment |
+| "Write a report / brief / exec summary / copy / technical doc" | writing-report, writing-executive-summary, writing-copy, writing-technical |
+| "How do I beat / outmaneuver / position against a competitor" | **`/strategy`**, strategy-terrain, strategy-positioning |
+| "When should I act / is now the right moment / should I wait" | strategy-timing, strategy-victory, decision-premortem-analysis |
+| "We're outgunned / under-resourced / need asymmetric leverage" | strategy-force-economy, strategy-positioning, strategy-alliance |
+| "I need to think through a negotiation / game / bidding situation" | **`/game-theory`**, game-theory-signaling, game-theory-equilibrium |
+| "How do I get people to cooperate / stop defecting / align incentives" | game-theory-prisoners-dilemma, game-theory-mechanism-design, game-theory-iterated |
+| "How much should I bid / how do I design this auction" | game-theory-auction, game-theory-mechanism-design |
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+- **Don't over-route.** Present 3–4 options maximum. More than 4 creates a new decision problem.
+- **Lead with the most directly useful skill** for the stated situation. If someone is clearly facing a go/no-go decision, decision-premortem-analysis is more useful than a broad creativity session.
+- **The context gathered in Step 1 is the input.** When the user selects a skill, run it on that context — they shouldn't have to re-explain the situation.
+- **If the situation is genuinely ambiguous**, ask one clarifying question: "Is your main challenge generating options, or evaluating an option you already have?"

package/skills/identity/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+---
+name: identity
+description: "Entry point for the identity toolkit. Routes to the right identity skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'identity', 'who are we', 'values check', 'is this on mission', 'what do we actually stand for', 'gut check', 'are we drifting', or want identity/values reasoning applied without knowing which specific tool fits."
+---
+
+# Identity
+
+Applies identity and values reasoning to decisions and directions. Diagnoses what kind of identity work is needed and applies the right tool.
+
+## Which tool fits
+
+| You need to... | Tool |
+|---|---|
+| Ask what a person or organization of genuine integrity would do | character-testing |
+| Test whether a decision is genuinely aligned with stated mission | mission-alignment |
+| Surface the actual operative values revealed by decisions | values-clarification |
+
+## Routing Decision
+
+- **Gut says something is wrong but can't articulate it** → character-testing
+- **Worried a direction is drifting from core purpose** → mission-alignment
+- **Want to know what your decisions actually reveal about your values** → values-clarification
+- **Unclear** → values-clarification; understanding actual values informs both mission alignment and character testing
+
+## Confirm Direction
+
+After diagnosing which tool fits, present the recommendation before executing:
+
+> My read: **[diagnosed tool]** — one sentence on why it fits.
+
+- **A) Yes, run that tool**
+- **B) Show me all options** — list every skill in this category with one-line descriptions
+- **C) Quick version** — lighter-weight alternative for this situation, if one exists
+- **D) Re-diagnose** — describe the situation differently for a second read
+
+Wait for their selection before proceeding.
+
+---
+
+## Character Testing
+
+*Asks what a person or organization of genuine integrity would do.*
+
+Describe the decision or situation. Now ask: what would someone you deeply respect — someone with genuine integrity and good judgment — do here? Not someone who optimizes outcomes, but someone whose character is beyond question. Where does that answer differ from your current direction? The gap between "what I'm doing" and "what a person of integrity would do" is the information.
+
+**Output:** The integrity-baseline answer, the gap from the current direction, and what specifically would need to change to close it.
+
+---
+
+## Mission Alignment
+
+*Tests whether a proposed decision is genuinely aligned with stated mission.*
+
+State the mission clearly. Now test the decision against it: (1) Does this serve the people/outcomes the mission is for? (2) Does this use the methods or principles the mission commits to? (3) Is the argument for doing this primarily mission-driven, or does it rationalize a departure for other reasons (revenue, convenience, opportunity)? Organizations drift from mission through a thousand individually defensible decisions.
+
+**Output:** Mission statement tested against the decision. Alignment score. Whether the decision is genuinely on-mission, a legitimate expansion, or a rationalized departure.
+
+---
+
+## Values Clarification
+
+*Surfaces the actual operative values revealed by decisions.*
+
+Stated values are aspirational; operative values are revealed by decisions under pressure. Look at recent decisions — especially hard ones where something was sacrificed. What was traded? What was protected? What would never be compromised, and what has been compromised? The pattern reveals the actual hierarchy of values, which often differs from the posted list.
+
+**Output:** Stated values vs. operative values comparison. The decisions that reveal the gap. The actual value hierarchy as demonstrated by behavior.

package/skills/identity-character-testing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+---
+name: identity-character-testing
+description: "Asks what a person or organisation of genuine integrity would do — grounding decisions in character rather than calculation. Triggers: 'character test', 'what would a person of integrity do', 'what does this say about us', 'gut check', 'would I be proud of this', 'are we being who we want to be'."
+---
+
+# Character Testing
+
+Ethical calculation — weighing outcomes, mapping trade-offs — can be gamed. Character cannot. The question "what would a person of genuine integrity do here?" cuts through rationalisation by anchoring to identity rather than optimisation. It works best when something feels wrong but is hard to name.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Describe the Situation and Decision**
+State what is happening and what is being considered. Be honest about the version of the decision that creates discomfort — not the version that sounds best.
+
+**Step 2: Describe the Character**
+Not aspiration, but genuine commitment — what kind of person or organisation is this, when at its best? What does it actually stand for? Describe this in concrete behavioural terms, not in values words.
+
+**Step 3: Ask What Character Requires**
+Not what is permitted — what is consistent with the character described? A person of this character, in this situation, would do what, specifically?
+
+**Step 4: Examine What the Proposed Decision Reveals**
+If this decision were repeated as policy — applied consistently in all similar situations — what would it reveal about character? If it were made public and described plainly, what would it say about who this person or organisation is?
+
+**Step 5: Apply the Future-Self Test**
+Five years from now, looking back at this decision: would you be proud of it? Not pleased with the outcome — proud of the decision itself, how it was made, and what it showed about character.
+
+**Step 6: Analyse the Divergence**
+If the character test points in a different direction from the proposed decision: what is driving that divergence? Is it a genuine competing consideration — or is it pressure, convenience, or fear? Is the divergence legitimate?
+
+---
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Character verdict only** — what a person of genuine integrity would do, without elaboration
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Situation and Decision
+[Honest description — including the uncomfortable version]
+
+### Character Description
+[Concrete, behavioural — not abstract values words]
+
+### What Character Requires
+In this situation, a person or organisation of this character would: [specific]
+
+### What the Proposed Decision Reveals
+If repeated as policy or made public: [what it would say about character]
+
+### Future-Self Test
+Looking back in five years: proud / uncomfortable / regretful — and why?
+
+### Divergence Analysis
+| The character test points toward | The proposed decision points toward | What's driving the divergence | Is it legitimate? |
+|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------|
+| ... | ... | ... | Yes / No |
+
+### Recommendation
+[What the character test implies — and whether it should override the original proposal]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+This test is most valuable when the calculation says one thing and something else says no. The discomfort is information — it deserves analysis rather than suppression.

package/skills/identity-mission-alignment/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+---
+name: identity-mission-alignment
+description: "Tests whether a proposed decision is genuinely aligned with stated mission — or is rationalising a departure from it. Triggers: 'mission alignment', 'is this on mission', 'are we drifting', 'mission check', 'does this serve our purpose', 'on brand'."
+---
+
+# Mission Alignment
+
+Organisations drift from mission gradually — through decisions that are each individually justifiable but collectively represent a departure from purpose. The test is not whether a decision can be argued to be consistent with mission, but whether it genuinely serves it.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: State the Mission Plainly**
+Not the marketing version — the operational version. What is this organisation or person actually trying to achieve, for whom, and why? If the mission has multiple legitimate interpretations, name them.
+
+**Step 2: State the Proposed Direction**
+What is the decision, initiative, or direction being evaluated?
+
+**Step 3: Test for Direct Mission Service**
+Does this directly serve the mission? If yes: how specifically — trace the connection. If no: what is it serving instead (growth, revenue, opportunity, stakeholder pressure)?
+
+**Step 4: Test for Rationalisation**
+Does the case for alignment require interpreting the mission more broadly than it was intended? Is this a genuine evolution of the mission — or is the mission being stretched to justify an attractive decision that doesn't actually fit?
+
+**Step 5: Apply the Genuine Pursuer Test**
+What would someone who genuinely, single-mindedly pursued this mission do? Does the proposal match that behaviour? If a person fully committed to the mission looked at this decision, would they find it obvious — or would they feel something was off?
+
+**Step 6: Classify and Recommend**
+Assign a classification and make a recommendation.
+
+---
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Misalignment only** — where this decision diverges from stated mission
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Mission Statement (Plain Version)
+[Operational description — not the tagline]
+
+### Proposed Decision
+[Clear description]
+
+### Direct Mission Service
+**Directly serves mission:** Yes / Partially / No
+**Connection (if yes):** [Specific trace from decision to mission outcome]
+**What it's actually serving (if no):** [Honest description]
+
+### Rationalisation Risk Assessment
+Is the mission being stretched to justify this decision? What is the evidence for or against?
+
+### Genuine Pursuer Test
+What would someone fully committed to this mission do? Does the proposal fit?
+
+### Classification and Recommendation
+**Classification:** On-Mission / Adjacent / Off-Mission / Mission-Expanding
+**Recommendation:** [Proceed / Proceed with modification / Pause / Decline — with rationale]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+"Adjacent" and "Mission-Expanding" are not the same thing — adjacent means close but not serving the mission, while mission-expanding means the mission is genuinely growing. Be precise about which applies.

package/skills/identity-values-clarification/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+---
+name: identity-values-clarification
+description: "Surfaces and tests actual operative values — distinguishing what is stated from what decisions actually reveal. Triggers: 'values clarification', 'what do we actually stand for', 'is this consistent with our values', 'values alignment check', 'test the values', 'what do our decisions reveal'."
+---
+
+# Values Clarification
+
+Stated values are aspirational. Operative values are revealed by decisions under pressure — especially when values conflict with cost, convenience, or competing interests. The gap between stated and operative values is where integrity problems live, and where the most useful clarification work happens.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: State the Values Being Invoked**
+Not abstract words — translate each value into a behavioural definition. "What does this value mean in practice? What behaviour does it require, and what behaviour does it prohibit?"
+- Instead of: "We value innovation."
+- Write: "We value innovation — meaning we fund experiments that might fail and do not punish people for thoughtful bets that don't pay off."
+
+**Step 2: Find Recent Decisions That Confirmed Each Value**
+For each value: what recent decision or action was consistent with the behavioural definition? Be specific — name the decision.
+
+**Step 3: Find Recent Decisions That Contradicted Each Value**
+For each value: what recent decision or action contradicted the behavioural definition? These are the most diagnostic data points.
+
+**Step 4: Identify Where Values Conflicted**
+Where did two values pull in opposite directions? When values conflict, one wins. The outcome reveals which value actually takes priority — the real priority order, not the stated one.
+
+**Step 5: State the Operative Values**
+Based on the evidence from Steps 2–4: what are the actual, operative values — as demonstrated by behaviour? Where do they differ from stated values?
+
+---
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Operative values only** — values actually revealed by decisions, not stated ones
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Values Analysis
+| Stated Value | Behavioural Definition | Confirming Decisions | Contradicting Decisions |
+|-------------|----------------------|---------------------|------------------------|
+| ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+### Value Conflicts and Revealed Priority Order
+| Conflict | Which Value Won | What This Reveals About Priority |
+|----------|----------------|----------------------------------|
+| ... | ... | ... |
+
+### Operative Values (As Evidenced)
+State what the organisation or person actually values, based on decisions — not aspiration.
+
+### Gaps Between Stated and Operative Values
+- [Where the stated value diverges from the operative one — and what it would take to close the gap]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+The most productive use of this analysis is not to criticise but to surface hidden commitments — values that are being lived without being named, and values that are named without being lived.

package/skills/logic/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+---
+name: logic
+description: "Entry point for the logic toolkit. Routes to the right logic skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'logic', 'is this sound', 'check my reasoning', 'find the flaw', 'fix this argument', 'find contradictions', 'map the dependencies', 'map the constraints', or want logical analysis applied without knowing which specific tool fits."
+---
+
+# Logic
+
+Applies logical analysis to arguments, plans, reasoning, and systems. Diagnoses what kind of logical work is needed and applies the right tool.
+
+## Which tool fits
+
+| You need to... | Tool |
+|---|---|
+| Full council pressure-test with peer review | logic-council |
+| Fast comprehensive logic report | logic-check |
+| Validate whether premises support a conclusion | argument-validation |
+| Find internal contradictions in a document or spec | consistency-check |
+| Map causal relationships and dependencies | causality-mapping |
+| Map the constraint landscape for a decision or plan | constraint-mapping |
+| Fix broken reasoning — not just diagnose, but repair | logic-fixer |
+
+## Routing Decision
+
+- **Complex argument worth thorough pressure-testing** → logic-council (multi-advisor + peer review)
+- **Need a complete logic review quickly** → logic-check (all dimensions, no overhead)
+- **Specific argument with a conclusion that needs validating** → argument-validation
+- **Document or spec that might contain contradictions** → consistency-check
+- **Need to understand what causes what, or what breaks if X changes** → causality-mapping
+- **Unclear what's actually negotiable or fixed in a situation** → constraint-mapping
+- **Have broken reasoning and want it repaired** → logic-fixer
+- **Unclear** → logic-check (comprehensive starting point that surfaces which deeper tool is needed)
+
+## Confirm Direction
+
+After diagnosing which tool fits, present the recommendation before executing:
+
+> My read: **[diagnosed tool]** — one sentence on why it fits.
+
+- **A) Yes, run that tool**
+- **B) Show me all options** — list every skill in this category with one-line descriptions
+- **C) Quick version** — lighter-weight alternative for this situation, if one exists
+- **D) Re-diagnose** — describe the situation differently for a second read
+
+Wait for their selection before proceeding.
+
+---
+
+## Logic Check
+
+*Fast comprehensive logic report on any argument, plan, or reasoning.*
+
+Apply a complete logical assessment in a single pass: (1) Premises — are they stated clearly and are they true? (2) Inference — do the conclusions actually follow from the premises? (3) Fallacies — which informal fallacies (if any) are present? (4) Hidden assumptions — what unstated premises is the reasoning relying on? (5) Verdict — is this reasoning sound, and if not, what specifically is wrong?
+
+**Output:** Five-section assessment with a final verdict: sound / unsound with specific diagnosis.
+
+---
+
+## Logic Council
+
+*Full five-advisor reasoning council — use for complex arguments where the conclusion matters.*
+
+See `logic-council` for the full multi-agent process with 5 independent reasoning framework advisors, peer review, and chair synthesis. Route here when the argument is complex, has non-obvious dependencies, or is reasoning you've invested in and want stress-tested by independent perspectives.
+
+---
+
+## Argument Validation
+
+*Checks whether an argument's premises support its conclusion.*
+
+Identify the argument structure: premises → conclusion. Test each premise: is it true, and does the argument assume it without justification? Test the inference: do the premises actually entail the conclusion, or is there a gap? Identify any logical fallacies present. Distinguish between deductive validity (the structure holds) and soundness (the premises are also true).
+
+**Output:** Argument map (premises, inference, conclusion), validity assessment, soundness assessment, fallacies identified, and the specific repair needed.
+
+---
+
+## Consistency Check
+
+*Surfaces internal contradictions in a document, spec, or plan.*
+
+Read for conflict, not comprehension. For each claim or requirement: does any other part of the document contradict it? Are there requirements that can't all be satisfied simultaneously? Are there edge cases that expose a hidden conflict? Documents that grew incrementally frequently have internal contradictions that no single author introduced but no one caught.
+
+**Output:** Contradictions inventory, classified by severity (surface vs. structural), with specific locations and suggested resolutions.
+
+---
+
+## Causality Mapping
+
+*Maps causal relationships, traces dependencies, and reasons about consequences.*
+
+Build the causal chain: A causes B because [mechanism]. B enables/requires C. If X changes, what else must change? What has to be true for the plan to work — what are the causal prerequisites? Where are the dependencies that, if broken, break everything downstream? Causal maps reveal the leverage points and the fragile assumptions.
+
+**Output:** Causal chain diagram (in text), key dependencies, critical path, and the assumptions the whole structure rests on.
+
+---
+
+## Constraint Mapping
+
+*Maps the full constraint landscape for a decision, design, or plan.*
+
+Inventory all constraints: (1) Classify each as hard (physical/legal), soft (organizational/political), or assumed (may not be real). (2) Find conflicts between constraints — requirements that can't all be satisfied. (3) Find the constraint boundary — the actual solution space that remains. (4) Identify which constraints, if relaxed, would most expand the solution space.
+
+**Output:** Constraint inventory classified by type, conflict map, solution space definition, and highest-value constraints to challenge.
+
+---
+
+## Logic Fixer
+
+*Takes broken reasoning and produces a corrected version.*
+
+Diagnose the specific failure: which premise is false? Where does the inference fail? What fallacy is present? What's the circular dependency? Then repair: restate the argument in a form that is valid, where every premise is defensible and the conclusion actually follows. The goal is not just to identify what's wrong — it's to produce reasoning that works.
+
+**Output:** Diagnosis of the specific logical failure(s). Repaired argument that is valid and sound. If the conclusion cannot be saved, a clear statement of what conclusion *is* supportable.