Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From skills-for-humanity
Routes analogical reasoning to the right sub-skill: boundary-testing, domain-transfer, perspective-shifting, or structure-mapping. Use for finding comparisons, importing solutions, or testing analogies.
npx claudepluginhub human-avatar/skills-for-humanityHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/skills-for-humanity:s4h-analogyThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Applies analogical reasoning to any problem. Diagnoses what kind of analogy work is needed and applies the right tool.
Imports solutions from unrelated domains by finding structural similarities between your problem and solved problems elsewhere. Useful for creative problem-solving and cross-domain innovation.
Facilitates analogical transfer sessions: abstracts problem structure, maps to distant domains like biology or history, transfers operating principles. Supports --brief, --tetralemma, --polarity modes for creative problem-solving.
Synthesizes information from multiple sources into coherent insights and applies analogical reasoning to transfer knowledge across domains. Useful for literature reviews, stakeholder feedback, and creative problem-solving.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Applies analogical reasoning to any problem. Diagnoses what kind of analogy work is needed and applies the right tool.
| You need to... | Tool |
|---|---|
| Find where an existing analogy or metaphor breaks down | boundary-testing |
| Import solutions from a completely different domain | domain-transfer |
| Approach a problem through a different field's lens | perspective-shifting |
| Test the structural correspondence between two situations | structure-mapping |
Framing check: Confirm the specific analogy situation before routing. State what you've identified — the analogy or problem being examined and the goal (stress-test, import solutions, shift perspective, or validate structure) — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
After diagnosing which tool fits, use the AskUserQuestion tool to confirm direction. Construct the question dynamically to include your diagnosis:
Proceed based on their selection.
Finds where an analogy breaks down before it's relied upon.
Name the analogy explicitly: A is like B because [shared properties]. Now systematically test each dimension of the comparison. For each shared property: does it actually hold? What differences exist? Find the dimension where the analogy fails in a way that matters for the decision at hand. Analogies fail silently — the damage happens when decisions are made on a mapping that doesn't hold in the relevant dimension.
Output: Analogy map (what holds, what doesn't), the specific dimension of failure, and what decisions should not rely on this analogy.
Imports solutions from unrelated domains by finding structural similarities.
Name the core structure of the problem: what kind of challenge is this underneath the surface details? Search for domains that have solved structurally similar problems — often in completely unrelated fields (biology for network design, military strategy for resource constraints, jazz for improvisational systems). For each candidate domain: what was the solution? How does it map back?
Output: Core problem structure, candidate domains with solved analogues, and specific solutions mapped back to the original problem.
Approaches a problem through a completely different field's lens.
Name the home domain — the expertise lens being applied by default. Now select 2-3 radically different fields: what would a [biologist / game designer / urban planner / etc.] see when looking at this? Apply each lens genuinely, not superficially. The goal is to surface assumptions invisible from inside the home domain.
Output: Per-lens analysis — what each field notices, what assumptions it challenges, what solutions it suggests that the home domain wouldn't.
Identifies the deep structural correspondence between two situations.
List the elements of situation A. List the elements of situation B. For each element in A: does a corresponding element exist in B? Are the relationships between elements preserved? Test whether the mapping is genuine isomorphism or just surface similarity. Surface similarity fails on deeper structure; genuine isomorphism predicts behavior accurately.
Output: Element-by-element correspondence table, relationship preservation check, verdict on whether the analogy is structurally valid, and what the mapping predicts.