- Home
- Skills
- Leegonzales
- Aiskills
- Claimify
claimify_skill
- Python
20
GitHub Stars
3
Bundled Files
2 months ago
Catalog Refreshed
4 months ago
First Indexed
Readme & install
Copy the install command, review bundled files from the catalogue, and read any extended description pulled from the listing source.
Installation
Preview and clipboard use veilstrat where the catalogue uses aiagentskills.
npx veilstrat add skill leegonzales/aiskills --skill claimify- CHANGELOG.md431 B
- README.md1.3 KB
- SKILL.md5.8 KB
Overview
This skill extracts and structures claims from conversations, documents, or debates and turns them into analyzable argument maps. It reveals explicit and implicit assertions, logical relationships (supports/opposes/assumes/contradicts), evidence chains, and tension points so you can evaluate and improve reasoning.
How this skill works
Claimify ingests source text, isolates atomic claims (one testable assertion per claim), and classifies each by type (factual, normative, causal, definitional, predictive, assumption). It then builds a relationship graph linking claims (supports, opposes, assumes, refines, contradicts) and produces outputs in table, graph, narrative, or JSON formats. Optional depth levels control whether the analysis is surface-level, standard, or deep with red-teaming and hidden-assumption mining.
When to use it
- Analyzing a debate or policy paper to surface core claims and gaps
- Red-teaming reasoning or checking for contradictions across a thread or transcript
- Synthesizing meeting notes into a clear argument structure and actionables
- Preparing rebuttals or briefings by mapping supporting and opposing claims
- Transforming unstructured conversation into JSON or graph for downstream tools
Best practices
- Extract atomic claims: one clear assertion per claim
- Be charitable first: steelman arguments before critique
- Label claim types to clarify role in reasoning (factual, normative, causal, etc.)
- Document evidence or source for each claim and flag uncertainty
- Explicitly note assumptions and missing premises that enable claims
- Use appropriate analysis depth: start standard, go deep for strategic red-teaming
Example use cases
- Turn a debate transcript into a claim graph to find contradictions and leverage points
- Convert stakeholder meeting notes into a prioritized claim table with evidence and assumptions
- Evaluate a policy memo: map causal chains and surface missing premises before recommending changes
- Create JSON outputs for programmatic argument analysis or visualization tools
- Run a red-team pass on a product launch argument to expose weak links and hidden assumptions
FAQ
Table, graph (Mermaid), structured narrative, and JSON suitable for programmatic use.
How does depth affect results?
Surface extracts only explicit claims; Standard adds clear relationships and obvious assumptions; Deep mines implicit claims, hidden assumptions, and runs red-team style critiques.