s4h-logic-argument-validation

s4h-logic-argument-validation is a skill for Claude Code from human-avatar/skills-for-humanity. It costs 112 tokens per session (1,226 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

An argument checker that asks whether the stated reasons actually support the conclusion and identifies errors in the reasoning. An argument is a set of claims offered as support for another claim.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review design decisions, technical proposals, product arguments, or any claim that needs to withstand scrutiny.
Why use it?
It helps catch conclusions that do not follow from the evidence, including common reasoning mistakes called logical fallacies.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin. Also seen: names the AskUserQuestion tool.

Part of the skills-for-humanity plugin — 197 skills, 1 hook shipped together

Good fit Use it to review design decisions, technical proposals, product arguments, or any claim that needs to withstand scrutiny.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-logic-argument-validation
Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Any agent
npx skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-logic-argument-validation
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install skills-for-humanity, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 197 skills, 1 hook.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for s4h-logic-argument-validation

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-logic-argument-validation/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-logic-argument-validation)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-logic-argument-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-logic-argument-validation/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

agentmods 80×15 button for s4h-logic-argument-validation

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-logic-argument-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-logic-argument-validation.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 112 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,226 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00112 $0.01226
Opus 5 $0.00056 $0.00613
Sonnet 5 $0.00022 $0.00245
Haiku 4.5 $0.00011 $0.00123

Measured 9d ago against content hash 5895bd5038c0, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

s4h-logic-argument-validation scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

skills/s4h-logic-argument-validation/SKILL.md · 116 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Logic Argument Validation

An argument can sound compelling while the reasoning is broken. Confident language, plausible premises, a conclusion that feels right — none of these guarantee the argument actually holds. This skill validates the structure: do the premises support the conclusion, and is the reasoning free of fallacies?


Your Process

Step 1: Extract the argument structure Before evaluating, make the argument explicit:

  • Premises: what claims is the argument built on?
  • Conclusion: what is it trying to prove?
  • Reasoning: what's the logical path from premises to conclusion?

Restate this clearly before proceeding. Often the weakest point becomes obvious once the structure is explicit.

Framing check: Confirm the argument being examined and the claim at stake before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual argument and the conclusion it is trying to establish — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:

  • Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the argument and its conclusion]. Is that right?"
  • Header: "Framing"
  • Options:
    • Yes — proceed — framing is correct
    • Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
    • Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding

Step 2: Test premise soundness For each premise:

  • Is it stated as fact? Is it actually established, assumed, or contested?
  • Is it relevant to the conclusion, or is it doing rhetorical work without logical work?
  • Are there hidden premises — unstated assumptions the argument silently depends on?

Step 3: Test the inference Does the conclusion actually follow from the premises, even if the premises are true? Common inference failures:

  • The premises support a weaker version of the conclusion than the one being claimed
  • The reasoning jumps over a step that would need its own justification
  • The conclusion is true but for reasons the premises don't establish

Read the full file on GitHub · 116 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 9d ago First seen · 116 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A 5895bd5038c0

Subscribe to this mod's changes

s4h-logic-argument-validation is a skill published in the GitHub repository human-avatar/skills-for-humanity (223 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 1,226 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

decision-making-under-pressure

Provides practical habits for making better decisions faster -- reframing problems before solving them, knowing when to stop deliberating, balancing intuition with analysis, resisting 'just this once' compromises, and breaking overthinking cycles. Use when facing a high-stakes choice with incomplete data, sensing that…

fatihguner/foreman · 95 tokens

flow-state

Optimizes individual and team productivity using Csikszentmihalyi's flow state framework, covering the conditions for flow (clear goals, immediate feedback, challenge-skill balance), the four-stage flow cycle, and organizational flow design. Use when auditing personal or team focus time, diagnosing productivity loss…

fatihguner/foreman · 96 tokens

stoic-right-action

Applies Stoic ethics of right action to entrepreneurial decision-making, covering the four cardinal virtues (courage, justice, temperance, wisdom), ethical leadership under pressure, and the discipline of choosing the harder right over the easier wrong. Use when facing ethical dilemmas in business, building a…

fatihguner/foreman · 89 tokens

bakeoff

Turn one decision into a judged tournament of solutions, then pick the best. Given a problem, design choice, or a suggestion you want cross-verified, it generates diverse candidate solutions, auto-derives the evaluation dimensions for THAT problem (so you don't have to know what to score on), judges every candidate…

CoriChui/bakeoff · 330 tokens

balanced-scorecard

Translate strategy into metrics across Financial, Customer, Internal Process, and Learning & Growth perspectives.

tupe12334/instinct · 22 tokens

customer-journey-map

Visualize every touchpoint a customer has with a product or service — stages, actions, emotions, pain points, opportunities.

tupe12334/instinct · 31 tokens