Ase meta steelman

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

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

<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 the minimum number of Pro-Theses to surface.

   Then, for the top-<count/> highest-ranked Pro-Theses or Supporting-Arguments, sort them by their rank from highest to lowest, store each in <prothesis-N/> with the format **<aspect-N/>** (rank: <rank-N/>/10): <statement-N/> (where <aspect-N/> is a short 1-3 word summary of <statement-N/>, <rank-N/> is the determined rank on the Likert scale, and <statement-N/> is a single-sentence statement of not more than 40 words), and then output the following <template/>:

   <template> <ase-tpl-bullet-signal/> **PRO-THESIS**: <prothesis-N/> </template> </step>
3. <step id="STEP 3: Consolidating Reasoning">

   Following the consolidation of...

   *Thesis* + *Pro-Theses* → *Fortification*
   

   ...with...

   • Thesis: the initial statement, claim, or position. It is asserted as true, but on its own it is under-developed: it captures part of the truth while leaving its own strongest support implicit, unstated, or unproven.

   • Pro-Theses: the reinforcing forces. They are the corroboration, evidence, or supporting positions that the thesis invites - precisely the role a Steelman played. The pro-theses make explicit what the thesis assumed or left unsaid.

   • Fortification: the consolidation. Not an uncritical "cheerleading" of the thesis, and not a mere restatement of it, but a stronger position that consolidates everything that genuinely strengthens it while honestly bounding where it holds. The fortification reinforces the position by sharpening it.

   ...then derive a strong single-sentence (not more than 40 words) fortification of the <thesis/> and all found <prothesis-N/> - the strongest defensible form of the thesis - store it in <fortification/>, and then finally output the following <template/>:

   <template> <ase-tpl-bullet-normal/> **FORTIFICATION**: <fortification/> </template>

   Finally, decide whether to perform a further round:

   <if condition="<i/> is less than <rounds/>"> Carry the result forward to the next round: set <thesis><fortification/></thesis> (the fortification becomes the thesis to be strengthened next), set <i/> to <i/> + 1 (increment the round counter), and then *REPEAT* the operation at **STEP 1**! </if> <if condition="<i/> is greater than or equal to <rounds/>"> All <rounds/> rounds are complete; *STOP* the loop here. Do not output any further explanations. </if> </step>

</flow>