To run this task you must have the following required information:

> An argument or position to analyze from multiple angles

If you don't have all of this information, exit here and respond asking for any extra information you require, and instructions to run this task again with ALL required information.

---

You MUST use a todo list to complete these steps in order. Never move on to one step if you haven't completed the previous step. If you have multiple read steps in a row, read them all at once (in parallel).

Add all steps to your todo list now and begin executing.

## Steps

1. [Read Argument Analysis Framework]: Read the documentation in: `skills/sauna/[skill_id]/references/analysis.argument.framework.md`

2. [Read Logical Fallacies Reference]: Read the documentation in: `skills/sauna/[skill_id]/references/analysis.fallacies.reference.md`

3. Get the argument from the user. If they haven't provided one, ask:
"What argument or position would you like me to steelman and weakman?"

Clarify the context if needed—who is making this argument, and to whom?
This affects how to frame the strongest and weakest versions.


4. Construct the steelman—the strongest possible version of the argument:

- Use the most charitable interpretation of claims
- Assume the best available evidence supports it
- Frame it in the most persuasive way
- Address obvious objections preemptively
- Make implicit strengths explicit

This is the argument at its best. Would it convince a skeptical but
fair-minded audience?


5. Construct the weakman—the weakest defensible version of the argument:

- Use the least favorable (but still honest) interpretation
- Highlight where evidence is thin or assumptions questionable
- Expose the most vulnerable logical moves
- Note what a critic would immediately attack

This is the argument at its most vulnerable. Where does it fall apart
most easily?


6. Present both versions and analyze the gap:

## Steelman & Weakman Analysis

### The Steelman (Strongest Version)
[Present the argument at its best]

**Key strengths this version relies on:**
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]

### The Weakman (Weakest Version)
[Present the argument at its most vulnerable]

**Key vulnerabilities this version exposes:**
- [Vulnerability 1]
- [Vulnerability 2]

### The Gap
**How much does interpretation matter?**
[Analyze: Is the core argument robust across interpretations, or does
its strength depend heavily on framing and charitable assumptions?]

**What the original argument needs:**
[Specific suggestions to move the argument closer to the steelman]