Analogy Commentary

Overview

Use this skill to explain content through a familiar frame, then turn that interpretation into concise commentary. It works best for social posts, essays, speeches, interviews, and summaries where the user wants a sharper lens rather than a factual report.

Default output is lightweight:

1 line on the source content's core claim
1 selected analogy framework
3-7 mapping bullets
"similar" vs "not the same" boundaries
1-3 commentary angles
1 short takeaway paragraph

When To Use

Use this skill when the user asks for any of the following:

"Does this sound like <story / faction / theory / historical pattern>?"
"Use <framework> to interpret this content."
"Give me a commentary angle on this post."
"Map this article to a familiar lens."
"What's the closest analogy, and where does the analogy break?"

Common source inputs:

social media long posts and threads
articles, blogs, essays, speeches, interviews
user-provided summaries or notes

Do not use this skill when the user primarily needs fact-checking, source verification, legal/medical/financial guidance, or exhaustive research synthesis.

Workflow

1. Extract the real claim first

Before making any analogy, identify:

what the content is actually arguing
what tension drives it
what emotional posture it takes

Useful tension types:

efficiency vs coordination
abundance vs scarcity
order vs disruption
agency vs submission
adaptation vs inertia
signal vs hype

If the source is long, summarize it in 1-3 lines before proceeding.

2. Choose one primary lens

Pick the closest framework, not the most stylish one.

Good framework families:

fiction or literature
political factions or ideological camps
business and strategy models
historical transitions
organizational behavior

Use references/frameworks.md for quick options and trigger examples.

Avoid stacking multiple frameworks unless the user explicitly asks. Default to one main lens and mention one secondary lens only if it materially improves clarity.

3. Map structure, not surface details

Explain both:

what feels similar
what is importantly different

Prioritize structural similarity:

role similarity
incentive similarity
power relationship similarity
system dynamic similarity

Deprioritize shallow similarity:

tone
aesthetics
buzzwords
isolated slogans

4. Keep boundaries explicit

Every analogy should include a boundary line such as:

"It resembles X in posture, but not in end-state."
"It uses X's emotional register, but the incentives are different."
"It is closer to X as a strategy than X as a worldview."

This prevents overclaiming and makes the commentary more reusable.

5. Produce concise commentary

Default output shape:

Core claim:
Primary lens:
Mappings:
- ...
- ...

Where it fits:
- ...

Where it breaks:
- ...

Commentary angles:
- ...
- ...

Short take:
...

Keep the short take crisp and publishable. It should sound like an informed interpretation, not a final truth claim.

Output Modes

Default: Lightweight

Use this unless the user asks for more:

3-7 mappings
1-3 commentary angles
100-200 word short take

Optional: Expanded

If requested, add:

competing analogies
audience-specific rewrites
stronger disagreement / critique
a social-post-ready version and a memo-style version

See references/output-patterns.md for example shapes.

Quality Bar

The output should:

name the analogy clearly
explain why it fits
explain where it fails
avoid pretending the analogy is exact
preserve the user's original topic instead of replacing it with the metaphor

Bad pattern:

forcing every topic into the same favorite reference
writing only vibes with no structural reason
mistaking rhetoric for substance

Good pattern:

identify the real tension
choose the nearest framework
mark the boundary
turn that into commentary

Resources

references/frameworks.md: quick analogy families and selection hints
references/output-patterns.md: compact output templates for common requests

analogy-commentary