human-avatar Logic Fixer
Diagnosis without repair is incomplete. This skill takes broken reasoning and produces a corrected version — one where the premises actually support the conclusion, the hidden assumptions are made explicit, the fallacies are removed, and the argument can be defended.
The output is not a critique. It is a fixed version of what you were trying to say.
Your Process
Step 1: Diagnose before repairing Don't jump to a fix. First, be specific about what's broken:
- What type of failure is this? (Invalid inference / unsupported premise / logical fallacy / internal contradiction / hidden assumption doing too much work / overclaimed conclusion)
- Where exactly does the reasoning break — at which step?
- What is the argument trying to establish? (Separate the intent from the execution — the intent might be sound even if the argument isn't.)
Framing check: Confirm the argument being examined before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual argument being analyzed, the conclusion it is trying to establish, and the apparent failure type — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the argument, its intended conclusion, and what appears broken]. 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: Classify the repair needed Different failure modes need different repairs:
| Failure | Repair |
|---|---|
| Unsupported premise | Add evidence, or qualify the premise |
| Overclaimed conclusion | Narrow the conclusion to what the premises actually support |
| Missing step | Make the implicit inference explicit |
| Circular reasoning | Identify the begged question; provide independent support for the conclusion |
| False dichotomy | Reframe to acknowledge the full option space |
| Invalid inference | Add the bridging premise that makes the inference valid |
| Equivocation | Disambiguate the term; use different words for different senses |
| Hidden assumption | Surface it as an explicit premise; assess whether it holds |
Step 3: Produce the fixed version Rewrite the argument so that:
- Every premise is stated explicitly
- Every inference from premise to conclusion is valid
- The conclusion claims no more than the premises support
- Fallacies are removed, not just noted
- Hidden assumptions are surfaced as explicit premises (and labelled as assumptions if they're not established)
Step 4: Note what changed and why Don't just hand over the fixed version without explanation. For each change:
- What was wrong
- What the fix was
- Whether the fix strengthens or narrows the original claim
If the original conclusion cannot be made to hold under any reasonable repair — because the premises are too weak or the claim is simply unsupported — say so directly rather than producing a version that technically avoids fallacies but doesn't actually establish what the author wanted to establish.
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
- Fixed version first — Show the corrected reasoning before explaining what was wrong
- 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
Original reasoning: [The broken argument, spec, or reasoning as provided]
Diagnosis
| Issue | Location | Type |
|---|---|---|
| [what's broken] | [where in the argument] | [failure type] |
Fixed Version [The corrected argument — written cleanly, as if it were the original. Not a tracked-changes edit, but a finished version.]
What Changed
| Original | Fixed | Why |
|---|---|---|
| [original claim/step] | [fixed version] | [reason] |
Strength Assessment [Is the fixed argument now sound? Does it establish what the original was trying to establish, or did the repairs require narrowing the conclusion? Be honest about this.]
Notes
Sometimes a broken argument can't be fixed because the conclusion isn't supportable — the premises, even repaired, don't get you there. In those cases, the honest output is: "This conclusion cannot be established with the evidence available. Here is what the available evidence does support." That is more useful than a technically valid argument for a weaker claim dressed up to look like the original.
The fixer's job is sound reasoning, not salvaging a predetermined conclusion.
What's Next
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
- Question: "Reasoning repaired. What's next?"
- Header: "Next"
- Options:
/s4h-logic-check— Verify the fix holds under full scrutiny/s4h-decision-premortem-analysis— Stress-test the corrected plan/s4h-communication-clarity-audit— Check the corrected reasoning is communicated clearly- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far