# Analyze Argumentation Flow

> Use this skill when the user wants to diagnose flaws in argumentation in English prose, without rewriting it.

- Skill: `yegor256/analyze-argumentation-flow` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add yegor256/analyze-argumentation-flow`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/yegor256/analyze-argumentation-flow/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: yegor256 (https://skillmd.com/u/yegor256)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/yegor256/analyze-argumentation-flow

---


## Reading

Read whole text once before flagging anything.
Reconstruct central thesis in one sentence.
Do this even when author never states it.
Report missing thesis as finding when you cannot reconstruct it.

## Scope

List supporting claims in order and note evidence for each.
Judge argument author makes, not one you wish they made.
Distinguish flaws of reasoning from flaws of taste.
Distinguish `the conclusion is wrong` from `the argument is weak`.
Report only second kind.

## Claims

Flag every factual claim without support.
Surface unstated premises argument leans on.
Check every key term for equivocation.

## Inference

Test inference at every `therefore`, `so`, `thus`, or `hence`.
Test it at every `which means` or `as a result` too.
Hunt for circular reasoning.
Check each premise's independent believability.

## Fallacies

Name specific fallacies and quote triggering line.
Use names from `references/fallacies.md`.
Treat one anecdote as one anecdote.
Watch for cherry-picked evidence and survivorship bias.
Mark every analogy and ask where it breaks.

## Rhetoric

Flag rhetorical questions that stand in for arguments.
Treat `obviously`, `clearly`, and `everyone knows` as red flags.
Treat `it goes without saying` and `as we all agree` same way.
Watch for loaded language replacing evidence.

## Counterargument

Check author addresses strongest counterargument.
Use one fair opponent would raise.
Notice when burden of proof shifts onto reader.

## Structure

Hunt for contradictions across paragraphs.
Compare introduction's promise against conclusion's delivery.
Flag restated claims that add no evidence, distinction, or consequence.
Notice scope creep, where narrow claim inflates into sweeping one.
Check order of reasoning.
Distinguish description from prescription.

## Fairness

Forgive slips that leave conclusion intact and challenge load-bearing ones.
Raise only objections honest reader would make.

## Report

Report findings as numbered list.
Give quoted snippet and fallacy name in each item.
Add one-sentence explanation and one-line remedy.
End with one-paragraph verdict.
Name which load-bearing claims survive and whether thesis stands.

## Restraint

Leave prose and author's voice intact.
Keep author's conclusion as theirs.

## Done

Confirm each finding carries snippet, fallacy name, explanation, and remedy.
Confirm report ends with one-paragraph verdict naming which claims survive.

## Example

Take this argument as input.

```text
Sales rose after the rebrand, so the rebrand drove the growth.
```

Return this report.

```text
1. Post hoc fallacy — "drove the growth" treats sequence as cause.
   Explanation: rebrand and growth could share another driver.
   Remedy: compare against comparable period without rebrand.

Verdict: causal claim unsupported, so thesis does not stand.
```