analogy-weight-check
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/analogy-weight-checkVerifies analogies carry mechanical explanatory weight.
- Filters out decorative metaphors that fail the removal test.
- Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty and domain fit.
- Flags clusters of decorative analogies as slop signals.
- Prioritizes biology and organizational domains over physics.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/analogy-weight-checkView on GitHub ↗
---
name: analogy-weight-check
description: For every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
---
# Analogy Weight Check
## Table of Contents
- [Mechanical-weight test](#mechanical-weight-test)
- [Workflow](#workflow)
- [Worked example](#worked-example)
- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
**Related skills:** Called by Editor in structural pass (since analogy decisions affect paragraph structure). Reads `shared-context/analogy-catalog.md` for novelty.
## Mechanical-weight test
The test: **if you remove the analogy, does the explanation still work?**
- **Still works** → analogy is decorative. Either cut or extend so it carries weight.
- **Degrades** → analogy carries weight. Keep.
A decorative analogy is not a tier-1 issue by itself — writers may legitimately use decorative language occasionally. But:
- **If the draft has >2 decorative analogies**, flag as a pattern. Cluster of decorative = slop signal.
- **If the analogy is physics/military** AND decorative, flag tier-2 (physics/military are already disfavored directions).
## Workflow
```
For each analogy in the draft:
- [ ] Step 1: Identify the analogy (source + target)
- [ ] Step 2: Mechanical-weight test — simulate removing it; does the explanation degrade?
- [ ] Step 3: Check analogy-catalog.md for reuse
- [ ] Step 4: Check source domain against voice-profile priority (biology > organizational > sports; not physics/military)
- [ ] Step 5: Emit verdict per analogy: carries-weight | decorative | reused-from-catalog | wrong-domain
```
## Worked example
**Draft excerpt**:
> A KV cache is like a library's card catalog — it lets you find things. Under the hood, it stores key and value projections for each past token, so when a new token arrives, attention can index back without recomputing.
>
> Attention is also like a room full of people trying to hear each other.
**Analogies**:
1. **"KV cache like a library card catalog"**
- Remove test: "A KV cache stores key and value projections for each past token, so when a new token arrives, attention can index back without recomputing." Still works and is arguably clearer.
- Verdict: **decorative**. Catalog check: not in analogy-catalog. Domain: neutral (everyday).
- Suggestion: either cut the simile, OR extend to carry weight ("like a card catalog with a fixed drawer count — evicting old cards to make room for new ones").
2. **"Attention is also like a room full of people trying to hear each other"**
- Remove test: what remains? "Attention is also…" — the sentence collapses; no mechanism.
- Verdict: **decorative** AND un-mapped (no component-to-component mapping in the draft).
- Suggestion: cut entirely or replace with a framing that carries weight.
**Overall**: 2 decorative analogies in one excerpt. Cluster signal — flag as tier-2, note pattern.
## Guardrails
1. Don't flag an analogy as decorative if the draft immediately extends it (next sentence provides the mapping). Look at the surrounding 2-3 sentences.
2. An analogy the writer has just generated via Intuition Builder is pre-mapped; treat as carrying weight unless the draft drops the mapping.
3. Reused analogies from the catalog are not failures; they're a feature of recurring analogies the writer owns (e.g., "from first principles" is a recurring frame). Flag softly.
4. Physics/military analogies get an extra demerit but are not automatic tier-1 — writer may use them with explicit irony or override.
5. Suggested rewrites should be ≤2 sentences each. Don't propose a full paragraph.
6. A decorative analogy in isolation is tier-2. Three+ decorative analogies in a single draft = pattern flag, still tier-2 but surfaced in summary.
## Quick reference
- Per-analogy verdict: carries-weight | decorative | reused-from-catalog | wrong-domain.
- Cluster rule: >2 decorative = pattern flag.
- Reads analogy-catalog.md; does not write (that's `update-analogy-catalog`).
More from lyndonkl/claude
- abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
- academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
- adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
- adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
- alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
- answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
- attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
- auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
- auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".
- audit-driftChecks every post currently assigned to a substacker section against that section's promise and flags posts that no longer fit. Distinguishes acceptable-stretch (minor) from borderline (surface for review) from genuine-drift (violates promise). Never reassigns automatically — only flags. Use on every Curator run where at least one section already exists. Trigger keywords: drift, drift audit, section fit, promise violation, post in wrong section.