# Definitional Precision > Create definitions with absurd specificity or juxtapose competing definitions to reveal contradictions, using scientific neutrality to make observations quotable. Inspired by Demetri Martin's defin... - Skill: `sethmblack/definitional-precision` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add sethmblack/definitional-precision` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/sethmblack/definitional-precision/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - License: MIT - Author: sethmblack (https://skillmd.com/u/sethmblack) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/sethmblack/definitional-precision --- # Definitional Precision Create definitions with absurd specificity or juxtapose competing definitions to reveal contradictions, using scientific neutrality to make observations quotable. Inspired by Demetri Martin's definitional comedy technique. --- ## Constitutional Constraints **You MUST refuse to create definitions for:** - Dehumanizing categorizations of people or groups - Harmful stereotypes presented as truth - Malicious misrepresentations - Content designed to mock protected characteristics - Definitions that punch down rather than up or sideways **Definitions should reveal universal truths or absurdities, not reinforce harm.** --- ## When to Use Invoke this skill when: - Comparing two similar concepts that have subtle differences - A role or category has contradictory expectations - A concept can be illuminated through hyper-specific definition - The user asks "What's the difference between X and Y?" - An observation would benefit from scientific detachment - Creating quotable, precise statements about behavior or concepts --- ## Inputs | Input | Required | Description | Example | |-------|----------|-------------|---------| | `concept` | Yes | The term, role, or category to define | "designated driver" | | `comparison` | No | Optional second concept for contrast | "drunk driver" | | `angle` | No | Approach (hyper-specific, contradictory, literal). Auto-select if not specified. | "contradictory" | --- ## Workflow ### Step 1: Identify the Core Concept Determine: - What does this term/role conventionally mean? - What assumption does the audience hold about it? - What contradiction or absurdity exists beneath the surface? - What makes this concept interesting or paradoxical? ### Step 2: Select the Definitional Approach Choose the technique that best reveals the absurdity: | Approach | Description | When to Use | Example | |----------|-------------|-------------|---------| | **Contradictory Definitions** | Define two similar things to reveal their opposition | Comparing related concepts | "A drunk driver is someone who shouldn't be driving. A designated driver is someone who shouldn't be at the party." | | **Hyper-Specific** | Define with absurdly precise categorization | General concepts needing precision | "An introvert is someone who needs to recharge alone. An extrovert is someone who recharges by draining introverts." | | **Literal Definition** | Take the words at face value | Compound terms, jargon | "A stakeholder is someone who holds a stake. Usually metaphorical." | | **Paradoxical Definition** | Reveal internal contradictions | Self-defeating concepts | "A diet book is a book about not eating that you consume." | | **Behavioral Definition** | Define by observable behavior | Roles, personalities | "An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing." | ### Step 3: Apply Scientific Neutrality Frame the definition as if documenting a natural phenomenon: - Use "is" not "I think" or "seems like" - Present tense for timelessness - No emotional modifiers ("hilarious," "crazy," "weird") - State it as observable fact - Let the contradiction speak for itself ### Step 4: Craft the Definition **Structure options:** **Simple definition:** ``` A [X] is [precise, revealing description]. ``` **Comparative definition:** ``` A [X] is [characteristic]. A [Y] is [contrasting characteristic]. ``` **Paradoxical definition:** ``` A [X] is [something that contradicts itself when examined closely]. ``` **Behavioral definition:** ``` [X] is someone who [specific observable behavior that reveals truth]. ``` ### Step 5: Test for Quotability A good definition should: - ✓ Stand alone without context - ✓ Be memorable and repeatable - ✓ Reveal truth through precision - ✓ Sound like an observation, not a joke setup - ✗ Require explanation to be understood --- ## Outputs **Primary Output:** A precise definition stated with deadpan authority. **Format:** ``` A [concept] is [definition that reveals absurdity through precision]. ``` Or for comparisons: ``` A [concept A] is [definition]. A [concept B] is [contrasting definition that reveals the absurdity]. ``` --- ## Error Handling | Situation | Response | |-----------|----------| | Concept too vague | Ask: "Can you be more specific about what aspect to define?" | | No meaningful definition | State honestly: "This doesn't lend itself to definitional humor." | | Multiple angles possible | Choose the strongest or present options | | Harmful comparison requested | Refuse and explain constraint violation | | Better suited to wordplay | Redirect to `wordplay-deconstruction` skill | --- ## Example 1: Contradictory Definitions **Input:** - Concept: "drunk driver" - Comparison: "designated driver" - Angle: contradictory **Output:** ``` A drunk driver is someone who shouldn't be driving. A designated driver is someone who shouldn't be at the party. ``` --- ## Example 2: Paradoxical Definition **Input:** - Concept: "digital camera" - Comparison: none - Angle: paradoxical **Output:** ``` The digital camera is a great invention because it allows us to reminisce instantly. ``` --- ## Example 3: Hyper-Specific Definition **Input:** - Concept: "optimist vs pessimist" - Comparison: "pessimist" - Angle: hyper-specific **Output:** ``` An optimist sees the glass half full. A pessimist sees it half empty. An engineer sees a glass twice as large as it needs to be. ``` --- ## Example 4: Behavioral Definition **Input:** - Concept: "social media influencer" - Comparison: none - Angle: behavioral **Output:** ``` A social media influencer is someone who gets paid to have opinions about things they were sent for free. ``` --- ## Example 5: Literal Definition **Input:** - Concept: "breakfast" - Comparison: none - Angle: literal **Output:** ``` Breakfast is the meal where you break your fast. Lunch is the meal where you... eat lunch. ``` --- ## Example 6: Comparative Contradiction **Input:** - Concept: "intern" - Comparison: "employee" - Angle: contradictory **Output:** ``` An employee is someone you pay to work. An intern is someone you don't pay to work. Both are legal. ``` --- ## Example 7: Multi-Layer Definition **Input:** - Concept: "expert" - Comparison: none - Angle: hyper-specific **Output:** ``` An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing. ``` --- ## Integration with Demetri Martin Expert This skill is a core component of the Demetri Martin expert's methodology: **When the expert should invoke this skill:** - Discussing roles, categories, or types of people - Comparing similar concepts with subtle differences - Creating quotable observations about behavior - The user asks for precision or clarification - An opportunity exists to reveal contradiction through definition **Voice integration:** The expert delivers definitions with deadpan authority: - ✓ "A [X] is someone who..." - ✓ "The difference between [X] and [Y] is..." - ✗ "Here's a funny way to think about [X]..." --- ## Constraints - **No setup required:** The definition should stand alone - **Universal observations:** Avoid culturally specific or dated references - **Precision over cleverness:** If it requires explanation, it's not working - **One insight per definition:** Don't pile on multiple observations - **Quotable length:** Usually 1-2 sentences maximum - **Present tense:** Creates timelessness --- ## Edge Cases **What if the concepts aren't meaningfully different?** - State that they're essentially the same, which itself can be the observation - Or find a subtle distinction and amplify it **What if the definition is too harsh?** - Check if it's punching down—if so, revise or refuse - If it's punching up or sideways, the harshness may be warranted **What if multiple definitions work?** - Choose the one that's most quotable and requires least context - Simpler is usually better **What if the concept is too abstract?** - Ground it in observable behavior - Or redirect to a more concrete related concept --- ## Advanced: The "Someone Who" Pattern Martin frequently uses this structure: ``` A [role/type] is someone who [specific behavior that reveals contradiction or truth]. ``` Examples: - "A vegan is someone who will tell you they're vegan." - "A morning person is someone who makes everyone else hate mornings." - "A consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time." This pattern works because: - It's simple and scalable - The "someone who" focuses on behavior, not judgment - It creates quotable, Twitter-length observations - The specificity itself creates the humor --- ## Combining with Other Skills Definitional precision can be enhanced by: - **Visual diagrams:** Turn the definition into a Venn diagram or chart - **Wordplay:** If the word itself has structural interest - **One-liner compression:** If the definition is too wordy The expert should recognize when multiple skills could work together. --- **Remember:** You're not making jokes about concepts. You're using precise definition to reveal truth that was hiding in imprecise language. The definition should feel like a discovery, not a punchline. ## Example **Input:** - input_data: [Specific example input] - context: [Relevant background] **Output:** [Detailed demonstration of the skill in action - showing the complete process and final result] **Why this works:** This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill by [explanation of what makes it effective].