{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"smithery_xiaobenyang-com-structured-argumentation","slug":"xiaobenyang-com-structured-argumentation","name":"structured-argumentation","type":"repo","url":"https://github.com/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659309571","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/xiaobenyang-com-structured-argumentation","categories":["research-search"],"tags":["mcp","model-context-protocol","smithery:xiaobenyang-com/structured-argumentation"],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"smithery_xiaobenyang-com-structured-argumentation__cap_0","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.systematic.argument.breakdown","name":"systematic argument breakdown","description":"This capability analyzes complex questions by breaking them down into structured arguments, utilizing a dialectical approach that organizes premises and conclusions. It employs a systematic framework to clarify reasoning, surface objections, and weigh strengths and weaknesses, allowing users to evaluate competing perspectives effectively. The architecture supports iterative refinements, guiding users from a thesis to a synthesis for clearer decision-making.","intents":["How can I analyze a complex question by breaking down its arguments?","What are the strengths and weaknesses of different perspectives on this issue?","How can I clarify my reasoning in a structured way?"],"best_for":["researchers and analysts evaluating multifaceted issues"],"limitations":["Requires manual input of arguments; automated extraction is not supported."],"requires":["Python 3.7+","Access to structured argumentation framework"],"input_types":["text"],"output_types":["structured data"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","argumentation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_xiaobenyang-com-structured-argumentation__cap_1","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.objection.surfacing","name":"objection surfacing","description":"This capability identifies and surfaces potential objections to a given thesis by analyzing the structured arguments presented. It employs a comparative analysis of premises to highlight counterarguments, ensuring that users can see weaknesses in their reasoning. This is achieved through a systematic review process that aligns objections with the original arguments, enhancing critical thinking.","intents":["What objections might arise against my thesis?","How can I ensure my argument is robust against counterarguments?","Can you help me identify weaknesses in my reasoning?"],"best_for":["students and professionals preparing for debates or discussions"],"limitations":["Objection identification is dependent on the quality of input arguments."],"requires":["Python 3.7+","Structured argument input"],"input_types":["text"],"output_types":["text"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","critical-thinking"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_xiaobenyang-com-structured-argumentation__cap_2","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.strengths.and.weaknesses.evaluation","name":"strengths and weaknesses evaluation","description":"This capability evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of competing arguments by employing a scoring system that quantifies various aspects of each argument. It systematically compares arguments based on predefined criteria, allowing users to visualize which arguments hold more weight in a given context. This structured evaluation helps in making informed decisions based on a clear understanding of the arguments' merits.","intents":["How can I compare the strengths of different arguments?","What are the weaknesses of the arguments I am considering?","Can you help me evaluate competing perspectives on this issue?"],"best_for":["decision-makers needing to evaluate multiple viewpoints"],"limitations":["Evaluation criteria must be defined manually; no automated scoring is available."],"requires":["Python 3.7+","Input of structured arguments"],"input_types":["text"],"output_types":["structured data"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","decision-support"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_xiaobenyang-com-structured-argumentation__cap_3","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.dialectical.progress.guidance","name":"dialectical progress guidance","description":"This capability guides users through the dialectical process from thesis to synthesis by providing structured steps and prompts that facilitate critical thinking. It employs a framework that encourages users to refine their arguments iteratively, ensuring that each step builds upon the previous one. This structured approach helps users navigate complex discussions and reach clearer conclusions.","intents":["How can I structure my argument development process?","What steps should I follow to reach a synthesis in my discussion?","Can you guide me through refining my thesis?"],"best_for":["individuals engaged in complex discussions or debates"],"limitations":["Requires active participation; not fully automated."],"requires":["Python 3.7+","Access to the dialectical framework"],"input_types":["text"],"output_types":["text"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","argumentation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":26,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"low","permissions":["Python 3.7+","Access to structured argumentation framework","Structured argument input","Input of structured arguments","Access to the dialectical framework"],"failure_modes":["Requires manual input of arguments; automated extraction is not supported.","Objection identification is dependent on the quality of input arguments.","Evaluation criteria must be defined manually; no automated scoring is available.","Requires active participation; not fully automated.","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.33,"ecosystem":0.48999999999999994,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.6,"weights":{"adoption":0.3,"quality":0.2,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.3,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:28.695Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T15:19:41.318Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=xiaobenyang-com-structured-argumentation","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=xiaobenyang-com-structured-argumentation"}},"signature":"AVdMOsQ1hc5I68fm9SKW3k4Vc+r3uOi+4nqzY7stmxczX9v662/DtRcoUKfEDnd2O5qeGQZUq4fYyJ9nd3mKCg==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T18:31:36.377Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/xiaobenyang-com-structured-argumentation","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/xiaobenyang-com-structured-argumentation","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=xiaobenyang-com-structured-argumentation","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}