Use when debates are trapped in false dichotomies, polarized positions need charitable interpretation, tradeoffs are obscured by binary framing, synthesis beyond 'pick one side' is needed, or when users mention steelman arguments, thesis-antithesis-synthesis, Hegelian dialectic, third way solutions, or resolving seemingly opposed principles.
Escapes false binary debates by steelmanning opposing positions, mapping their underlying principles and tradeoffs, then synthesizing a principled third way that honors both sides' core values. Use when trapped in polarized choices, hidden tradeoffs, or when users request steelman arguments, dialectic synthesis, or "third way" solutions.
/plugin marketplace add lyndonkl/claude/plugin install lyndonkl-thinking-frameworks-skills@lyndonkl/claudeThis skill inherits all available tools. When active, it can use any tool Claude has access to.
resources/evaluators/rubric_dialectical_mapping_steelmanning.jsonresources/methodology.mdresources/template.mdDialectical Mapping & Steelmanning helps you escape false binary choices by:
This moves debates from "A vs B" to "here's the best of both, here's what we sacrifice, here's why it's worth it."
Use this skill when:
Trigger phrases: "steelman", "thesis-antithesis-synthesis", "Hegelian dialectic", "false dichotomy", "third way", "both sides have a point", "transcend the debate", "resolve the tension"
Dialectical Mapping & Steelmanning is a three-step reasoning process:
Quick example:
Debate: "Should our startup prioritize growth or profitability?"
Typical (bad) framing: Binary choice. Pick one, argue against the other.
Steelman Thesis (Growth):
Steelman Antithesis (Profitability):
Synthesis (Profitable Growth):
Result: Escaped false binary. Found principled synthesis with explicit tradeoffs.
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
Dialectical Mapping Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Frame the debate
- [ ] Step 2: Steelman Position A (Thesis)
- [ ] Step 3: Steelman Position B (Antithesis)
- [ ] Step 4: Map principles and tradeoffs
- [ ] Step 5: Synthesize third way
- [ ] Step 6: Validate synthesis quality
Step 1: Frame the debate
Identify the topic, the two polarized positions (Thesis vs Antithesis), and the apparent tension. Clarify why this feels like a binary choice. See Common Patterns for typical debate structures.
Step 2: Steelman Position A (Thesis)
Present Position A in its strongest form: underlying principle (what it values), best arguments (strongest case for this position), supporting evidence, and legitimate tradeoffs it accepts. Use resources/template.md for structure. Avoid strawmanning—present version that adherents would recognize as fair.
Step 3: Steelman Position B (Antithesis)
Present Position B in its strongest form with same rigor as Position A. Ensure symmetry—both positions get charitable treatment. See resources/template.md.
Step 4: Map principles and tradeoffs
Create tradeoff matrix showing what each position optimizes for (values) and what it sacrifices (costs). Identify underlying principles (speed, quality, freedom, safety, etc.) and how each position weighs them. For complex cases with multiple principles, see resources/methodology.md for multi-dimensional tradeoff analysis.
Step 5: Synthesize third way
Find higher-order principle or hybrid approach that transcends the binary. The synthesis should honor core values of both positions, create new value (not just compromise), and make new tradeoffs explicit. Use resources/template.md for structure. For advanced synthesis techniques (temporal synthesis, conditional synthesis, dimensional separation), see resources/methodology.md.
Step 6: Validate synthesis quality
Self-assess using resources/evaluators/rubric_dialectical_mapping_steelmanning.json. Check: steelmans are charitable and accurate, principles identified, tradeoffs explicit, synthesis transcends binary (not just compromise), new tradeoffs acknowledged. Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5.
Pattern 1: Temporal Synthesis (Both, Sequenced)
Pattern 2: Conditional Synthesis (Both, Contextual)
Pattern 3: Dimensional Separation (Both, Different Axes)
Pattern 4: Higher-Order Principle (Transcend via Meta-Goal)
Pattern 5: Compensating Controls (Accept A's Risk, Mitigate with B's Safeguard)
Critical requirements:
Steelman, don't strawman: Present each position as its adherents would recognize. Ask: "Would someone who holds this view agree this is a fair representation?" If no, strengthen it further.
Identify principles, not just preferences: Go deeper than "Side A wants X, Side B wants Y." Find WHY they want it. What value do they optimize for? Freedom? Safety? Speed? Equity? Efficiency?
Synthesis must transcend, not just compromise: Splitting the difference (50% A, 50% B) is usually weak. Good synthesis finds new option C that honors both principles at higher level. "Both-and" thinking, not "either-or" averaging.
Make tradeoffs explicit: Every synthesis has costs. State what you gain AND what you sacrifice vs pure positions. Don't pretend synthesis is "best of both with no downsides."
Avoid false equivalence: Steelmanning doesn't mean both sides are equally correct. One position may have stronger arguments/evidence. Synthesis should reflect this (lean toward stronger position, add safeguards from weaker).
Check for false dichotomy: Some "debates" are manufactured. Both A and B may be bad options. Ask: "Is this actually a binary choice, or are we missing option C/D/E?"
Test synthesis with adversarial roles: Before finalizing, inhabit each original position and critique the synthesis. Would a partisan of A/B accept it, or see it as capitulation? If synthesis can't survive friendly fire, strengthen it.
Common pitfalls:
Key resources:
Typical workflow time:
When to escalate:
Inputs required:
Outputs produced:
dialectical-mapping-steelmanning.md: Complete analysis with steelmanned positions, tradeoff matrix, synthesis, and recommendationsCreating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems. Create original algorithmic art rather than copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.
Applies Anthropic's official brand colors and typography to any sort of artifact that may benefit from having Anthropic's look-and-feel. Use it when brand colors or style guidelines, visual formatting, or company design standards apply.
Create beautiful visual art in .png and .pdf documents using design philosophy. You should use this skill when the user asks to create a poster, piece of art, design, or other static piece. Create original visual designs, never copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.