s4h-writing-argument

s4h-writing-argument is a skill for Claude Code from human-avatar/skills-for-humanity. It costs 96 tokens per session (1,736 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

An argument-building guide that connects claims to evidence and uncovers the assumptions linking them.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to build, review, or repair persuasive explanations, proposals, and decisions.
Why use it?
It helps find gaps in reasoning, weak evidence, and important objections that could make an argument unconvincing.

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 build, review, or repair persuasive explanations, proposals, and decisions.

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

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

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-writing-argument"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-writing-argument.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 96 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,736 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 $0.00096 $0.01736
Opus 5 $0.00048 $0.00868
Sonnet 5 $0.00019 $0.00347
Haiku 4.5 $0.00010 $0.00174

Measured 9d ago against content hash 90479ac15970, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

s4h-writing-argument 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-writing-argument/SKILL.md · 118 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Writing: Argument

Arguments fail not in the evidence but in the warrant — the unstated principle connecting evidence to claim. The warrant is the assumption that makes the argument work. Most writers never surface it, because to them it is obvious. But the reader may be supplying a different warrant — and reaching a different conclusion from the same evidence.

The structure of every argument:

  • Claim: What you are asserting to be true
  • Evidence: The facts, data, examples, or observations that support it
  • Warrant: The principle or assumption that connects the evidence to the claim

Example: "Remote workers are more productive (evidence). Therefore we should adopt a remote work policy (claim)." The warrant — "policies should be adopted when they increase productivity" — sounds obvious but is not. A reader who believes "productivity must be balanced against team cohesion and culture" will not accept the warrant, and the argument fails for them even if the evidence is strong. Making the warrant explicit forces both writer and reader to examine the actual assumption.

The second most common failure: the strongest counterargument is not addressed. An argument that doesn't engage its best objection is not a complete argument — it is a one-sided brief that any reader with reservations can dismiss. Addressing the counterargument, not to concede but to answer it, is what makes an argument persuasive rather than merely insistent.


Your Process

Step 1: Central Claim State the argument's claim in one sentence. Be specific: "We should adopt a four-day work week" is more specific than "Work-life balance matters." The more specific the claim, the more clearly the evidence can be evaluated against it. A claim that can't be stated specifically is often a claim that hasn't been formed yet.

Framing check: Confirm the specific argument before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual claim being argued and the context or piece it appears in — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:

  • Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the specific argument and its context]. 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 argument than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding

Read the full file on GitHub · 118 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 · 118 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A 90479ac15970

Subscribe to this mod's changes

s4h-writing-argument is a skill published in the GitHub repository human-avatar/skills-for-humanity (223 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 96 tokens to every session and 1,736 once invoked, about $0.0005 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