/ase-meta-steelman

name: ase-meta-steelman
argument-hint: "[--help|-h] [--count|-c <count>] [--rounds|-r <rounds>] <thesis>"
description: >
    Build the strongest possible case for a thesis by playing
    "Steelman" (Latin spirit: "Advocatus Dei"). Use when the user
    wants a thesis or statement charitably strengthened and defended.
user-invocable: true
disable-model-invocation: false
effort: xhigh

@${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../meta/ase-control.md @${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../meta/ase-skill.md @${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../meta/ase-getopt.md

<purpose name="ase-meta-steelman"> Build the "Steelman" Argument </purpose>

<expand name="getopt" arg1="ase-meta-steelman" arg2="--count|-c=10 --rounds|-r=1"> $ARGUMENTS </expand>

<objective> Build the "Steelman" argument by constructing the strongest possible case for the thesis: <thesis><getopt-arguments/></thesis> </objective>

Determine the number of *rounds* to perform: set <rounds/> to <getopt-option-rounds/>; if <getopt-option-rounds/> is *non-numeric* or *less than or equal to 0*, use the default *1* instead.

Determine the minimum number of *pro-theses* to surface: set <count/> to <getopt-option-count/>; if <getopt-option-count/> is *non-numeric* or *less than or equal to 0*, use the default *10* instead.

<flow>

1. <step id="STEP 1: Restate Thesis">

Begin a *round* of fortification and consolidating reasoning. On the first visit, set <i>1</i> (set round counter to one); on each subsequent visit (via the jump back in the last step), <i/> has already been incremented.

<if condition="<rounds/> is greater than 1"> Indicate the current round with the following <template/>:

<template> <ase-tpl-bullet-secondary/> **ROUND**: <i/>/<rounds/> </template> </if>

Output the thesis with the following <template/>:

<template> <ase-tpl-bullet-normal/> **THESIS**: <thesis/> </template>

</step>

2. <step id="STEP 2: Determine Pro-Theses">

Reason on the thesis in <thesis/> by playing *Steelman* (Latin spirit: "Advocatus Dei") - building the strongest possible case *for* it - by charitably strengthening and defending it with the help of the following tenets:

• **Charitable Interpretation**:

Defend the strongest ("steelman") interpretation of the <thesis/>, not the weakest ("strawman"), because the most generous reading is the one worth defending and the one a fair critic must ultimately confront.

• **Strengthen the Fundamentals**:

Identify the soundest fundamental ideas behind the thesis and make them explicit, because a position rests on the strength of its foundation and a solid foundation carries everything built on top of it.

• **Credit Claims, Not Person**:

Support the thesis, the assumption, the evidence - never appeal to the proponent's authority or reputation, because a case that leans on who said it instead of what was said is no stronger than its weakest argument.

• **Make the Enabling Assumptions Explicit**:

Surface the reasonable assumptions the thesis depends on and show they hold, because most strong arguments gain their force from premises that are sound once stated out loud.

• **Supply Evidence Proportional to Claim**:

Ask "How do we know this?" and "What best supports it?", and marshal that support, because a claim defended with its strongest available evidence is the one hardest to dismiss.

• **Seek the Confirming Case**:

Actively hunt for the supporting example, the favorable scenario, the precedent where the position succeeds, because one solid confirming case anchors the argument in reality.

• **Merit Identification**:

Focus on the genuine strengths of the thesis with the highest potential value only, because marginal merits are not worth the explicit discussion.

• **Push the Logic to its Best Conclusion**:

Ask "If we accept this, then what follows?" and apply "Reduction to the Good" (Latin: "Reductio Ad Bonum"), because this strengthens the thesis by showing that accepting it leads to coherent, beneficial, and reinforcing conclusions.

• **Surface the Upside and Leverage**:

Name the opportunity gained, the compounding benefit, the problem dissolved, because every choice in the thesis unlocks possibilities that a fair appraisal must count.

• **Stay Falsifiable and Concrete**:

Frame each supporting point so it can be checked and confirmed with facts, because vague enthusiasm ("I just like it") adds no strength to the case.

• **Argue in Good Faith**:

Make clear you are building the best honest case, not overselling, because the goal of the objective is a better final decision, not a sales pitch.

• **Concede the Real Weaknesses**:

Acknowledging where the thesis genuinely falls short is what makes the defense credible, because a Steelman who can never admit a flaw is just an apologist.

• **Pre-Parade Thinking**:

Imagine success scenarios of the thesis, because envisioning how it wins clarifies the conditions worth securing in advance.

For each Pro-Thesis or Supporting-Argument rank it on a Likert scale of 0 (weak) to 10 (strong). Repeat the process of finding more Pro-Theses or Supporting-Arguments until you EITHER have found at least <count/> Pro-Theses or Supporting-Arguments with at least a rank of 7 OR you have already checked a total of <count/> x 5 Pro-Theses or Supporting-Arguments. If the second condition is reached first and fewer than <count/> Pro-Theses or Supporting-Arguments reached a rank of at least 7, nevertheless surface the <count/> highest-ranked ones found so far, because <count/> is