Analogy Commentary

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

Framework Hints

Use this file to choose a primary analogy lens quickly.

Fiction / Literature

• 三体派别
• Use when content is about submission vs resistance, civilizational pressure, strategic adaptation, or changing humanity's role under a stronger force.
• Useful distinctions: 降临派, 拯救派, 幸存派, 面壁者.
• 黑镜
• Use when content centers on technology amplifying human incentives, vanity, control, social signaling, or hidden costs.
• 赛博朋克
• Use when content is about tool acceleration, institutional lag, platform power, or fragmented human agency inside a hyper-technical world.

Business / Strategy

• 创新者的窘境
• Use when incumbents are trapped by legacy incentives while new models move faster.
• 供给爆炸 / 注意力稀缺
• Use when production cost collapses but demand, trust, or user attention stays limited.
• 平台迁移
• Use when the real change is an interface shift, distribution shift, or orchestration shift.

History / Society

• 印刷术时刻
• Use when a formerly scarce capability becomes massively accessible and triggers content oversupply.
• 工业革命式重组
• Use when workflows, labor roles, and institutions lag behind a production breakthrough.
• 官僚制失配
• Use when old process layers become the bottleneck after technical acceleration.

Organization / Behavior

• 组织惯性
• Use when teams keep optimizing the old bottleneck even after constraints moved.
• 角色重写
• Use when individuals need to shift from direct execution to judgment, orchestration, or verification.

Selection Rules

• Choose the lens that best explains the source's structure.
• Prefer one strong framework over several weak ones.
• If two lenses both fit, use one as primary and one as a contrast.
• Always explain where the analogy stops working.

Output Patterns

Use these patterns to stay concise.

Pattern 1: "像不像"

Best for: "这像不像三体里的降临派？"

结论：
- 有一点像，但不完全一样。

像的地方：
- ...
- ...

不像的地方：
- ...
- ...

一句话总结：
- ...

Pattern 2: 派别映射

Best for: "用三体派别解释这段内容。"

对应分析：
- 降临派：...
- 拯救派：...
- 幸存派：...
- 面壁者：...

更像什么：
- ...

为什么不是纯粹的 X：
- ...

Pattern 3: 评论角度

Best for: "给我几个评论视角。"

核心命题：
- ...

评论角度：
- ...
- ...
- ...

短评：
- ...

Pattern 4: 通用类比

Best for: user names a non-三体 framework.

核心命题：
- ...

主类比：
- ...

映射关系：
- ...
- ...
- ...

边界：
- ...

短评：
- ...