steelman

Steelman

Context: $ARGUMENTS

Build the strongest version of the argument AND the strongest contrary case. Two deliverables, not one.

Workflow

1. Initialize the graph

uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py reset
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py add "placeholder" claim --obs "init"

2. Build the steelman

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/steelmanning.md.

Restate the idea in its STRONGEST form:

• Remove weak phrasing the proponent would fix if pointed out
• Add supporting evidence they may have missed
• Identify the core claims and the assumptions they rest on
• Present the version that the idea's smartest, most informed defender would present

For each claim and assumption, register in the graph:

uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py reset
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py add "<claim-id>" claim --obs "<fact 1>" "<fact 2>"
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py add "<assumption-id>" assumption --obs "<fact>"
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py relate "<claim-id>" assumes "<assumption-id>"

Present the steelman to the user.

3. Build the contrary case (Dissoi Logoi)

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/dissoi-logoi.md.

Apply the formula: "X can be Y and not-Y." Argue the complete opposite case with equal conviction. Not a weak rebuttal, a full-throated argument that the idea is wrong.

Register counter-arguments in the graph:

uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py add "<counter-id>" counter --obs "<fact>"
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py add "<evidence-id>" evidence --obs "<fact>"
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py relate "<counter-id>" undermines "<claim-id>"
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py relate "<evidence-id>" supports "<counter-id>"

Present the contrary case to the user.

4. Show where each side is strongest

Run analyze to see the structural picture:

uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py analyze

Summarize: which claims have strong support, which assumptions are ungrounded, where reasonable people could disagree.

Output format

Present two clearly labeled sections:

The Strongest Case FOR: (the steelman) The Strongest Case AGAINST: (dissoi logoi) Where Each Side Is Strongest: (from graph analysis)

Resources

• ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/steelmanning.md — load always. Defines what steelmanning is, the straw man / weak man / hollow man anti-patterns to avoid, and the principle that you must address the strongest form of the argument.
• ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/dissoi-logoi.md — load always. The Greek tradition of contrasting arguments, Schiappa's formula, Protagoras' principle that every argument has two contradicting sides.
• ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py — run throughout to register claims, assumptions, counters, evidence, and their relations.

Gotchas

• The steelman must be genuinely strong. If a proponent would read it and say "that's not my best argument," you failed. Spend real effort here.
• The contrary case must be argued with equal conviction. If it reads like a straw man rebuttal, redo it.
• Graph entity names should be short kebab-case identifiers, not full sentences. Observations carry the detail.
• The graph state persists in /tmp. If another skill (crucible, verdict) runs after this, it reads the same graph. This is by design.