Analogies are tools, not truths. The danger is not using an analogy — it is using one past its boundary. Analogies fail silently: the flaw is invisible until a decision has been made that depended on the part that didn't hold. This skill finds the boundary before that happens.
Your Process
Step 1: State the Analogy Write it explicitly: "X is like Y." Name the analogy being tested, the domain it comes from, and the claim being made on the basis of it.
Step 2: List Similarities What does the analogy capture correctly? List every genuine parallel — the aspects where the structural correspondence is real. This is not validation; it's establishing what the analogy is good for before finding what it isn't.
Step 3: List Differences Every meaningful divergence between X and Y is a potential failure point. List them systematically: different actors, different dynamics, different constraints, different feedback mechanisms, different scales, different reversibility. Be thorough — incomplete difference-listing is the most common failure mode here.
Step 4: Test Each Difference Against the Decision For each decision or conclusion being made on the basis of this analogy: which differences are relevant to that specific decision? A difference that doesn't affect the conclusion is harmless. A difference that does affect it invalidates the reasoning.
Step 5: Does the Conclusion Still Hold? For each relevant difference identified in Step 4: if this difference is real, does the conclusion derived from the analogy still follow? If not, the analogy cannot support that conclusion.
Step 6: State Safe Scope Where can this analogy be validly relied upon? What does it illuminate, and what decisions can it inform? State the boundary clearly.
Human Check-in
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool:
- Question: "How do you want to run this?"
- Header: "Scope"
- Options:
- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
- Breaking points only — Where the analogy fails, not where it holds
- Refine the framing — Adjust what we're analyzing before starting
Proceed based on their selection.
Output Format
Analogy: [X is like Y — domain and claim]
Similarities (what the analogy captures correctly):
[Bulleted list]
Differences (potential failure points):
[Bulleted list — be thorough]
Relevant differences for this decision:
| Difference | Relevant to decision? | Effect on conclusion |
|---|---|---|
Conclusion validity:
[Does the analogy support the conclusion? Yes / Partially / No — with reason]
Safe scope — what this analogy validly applies to:
[Bounded statement]
Notes
The most useful output is the safe scope statement — a positive claim about where the analogy is reliable. Discarding an analogy entirely because it has limits wastes the genuine insight it contains.
What's Next
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
- Question: "Analogy boundaries tested. What's next?"
- Header: "Next"
- Options:
/analogy-domain-transfer— Now that boundaries are clear, execute the transfer carefully/logic-check— Check whether conclusions crossed a boundary they shouldn't have/constraint-hardness-testing— Are the boundary differences hard constraints or soft?- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far