BytesAgain is a curated directory of 60,000+ AI agent skills from ClawHub, GitHub, LobeHub, and Dify. Search skills by keyword in 7 languages, browse by role (developer, creator, trader, marketer) or by use case.

How do I find AI skills on BytesAgain?

Use the search bar on BytesAgain.com to search by keyword in 7 languages. You can also browse by role (developer, creator, trader, marketer) or by use case. Each skill shows install instructions for Claude, Cursor, OpenClaw, Continue, and more.

Yes, BytesAgain is completely free. No registration required for searching skills. The MCP API is also free with rate limits.

Does BytesAgain have an API for AI agents?

Yes! BytesAgain provides a free MCP SSE endpoint at /api/mcp/sse for AI agents, plus a REST API at /api/mcp?action=search&q= . No authentication needed.

Can I request a new AI skill on BytesAgain?

Yes! Visit the Requests page on BytesAgain.com to submit a skill request. Your request will be visible to the community and notified to the site admin.

🦀 ClawHub

Warrant Tester

by @quochungto

Test the warrants in a research argument — the general principles that connect reasons to claims. Use this skill when a reader might accept a reason as true...

Versionv1.0.0

#clawhub

⚡ When to Use

Trigger	Action
That question is asking for a warrant: a general principle that connects the reason to the claim. Warrants are the logical bridges in an argument. They are almost always present, but rarely stated. This skill surfaces them, tests them, and determines what to do with them.
The core logic of a warrant:
A warrant has two parts in the form When X (general circumstance), then Y (general consequence). The specific reason must be a valid instance of the general circumstance. The specific claim must be a valid instance of the general consequence. If both fits hold, the argument is logically coherent. If either fit fails, the argument has a structural problem.
Example:
- Claim: "The Russian Federation faces a falling standard of living."
- Reason: "Its birthrate is only 13.2 per 1,000 and life expectancy for men is only about 63 years."
- Implicit warrant: "When a nation's labor force shrinks, its economic future is grim."
A reader who does not share that warrant will accept the reason but deny it is relevant to the claim. Supplying the warrant makes the logic explicit and gives the reader something specific to engage with.
Preconditions to verify:
- Does the user have a claim and at least one reason? If not, invoke `research-argument-builder` first to assemble the argument structure.
- Can the user state the claim and each reason in a single sentence? If not, ask them to do so before proceeding — warrant testing requires precise formulations.
This skill does NOT cover:
- Assembling the full argument (claim, reasons, evidence, acknowledgment): use `research-argument-builder`
- Generating detailed strategies for each reader objection or counterargument: use `counterargument-handler`

💡 Examples

Example 1 — Historical argument

Argument:

Claim: "Gun ownership was probably not widespread in early America before 1850."

Reason: "Guns were rarely mentioned in wills filed in seven states between 1750 and 1850."

Step 1 — Surfaced warrant: "When valuable household objects were not listed in a will, the household did not own them."

Five-test battery: 1. Reasonable? Plausible — wills were legal inventories of valuables. But readers who believe widespread gun ownership was common will resist. Needs supporting argument: Watson (1989) confirmed this practice in Cumberland County wills. [sub-argument needed] 2. Sufficiently limited? The original version allows no exceptions. Qualified: "Most household objects *considered valuable by their owners* were *usually* listed in wills." Now must address: Were guns always considered valuable? What is "usually"? 3. Superior to competing warrants? A competing warrant: "When war was common, most households owned weapons as a matter of survival." This competes. Must argue why the will-listing warrant prevails for this time and place. 4. Field-appropriate? For historical demography — yes. Document-based inference from legal records is standard in this field. 5. Covers this reason and claim? Check: "Guns rarely mentioned in wills" is an instance of "valuable object not listed" only if guns were valuable. Check: "Gun ownership not widespread" is an instance of "household did not own them" at the aggregate level. Both fits hold, but the "valuable" condition is the vulnerability.

Decision on stating the warrant: State explicitly — the argument's expected readers (general readers who believe widespread gun ownership was historically common) will not share this principle and will challenge relevance.

Example 2 — Interdisciplinary argument with competing warrants

Argument:

Claim: "The state can require vaccination of children against measles."

Reason: "When most children are vaccinated, everyone is safer."

Step 1 — Surfaced warrant: "When medical decisions concern matters of public health, the state has a right to regulate them."

Competing warrant: "When parents believe a medical procedure may harm their children, they have a right to refuse it."

Test 3 — Competing warrant analysis: Both are reasonable and backed by defensible principles. Neither can simply be dismissed. Reconciliation: limit both.

Warrant A limited: "Parents may refuse a medical procedure *so long as that refusal does not jeopardize the health of others.*"

Warrant B limited: "The state may regulate medical decisions concerning public health *so long as it encroaches as little as possible on parental medical decisions.*"

Decision on stating: State the warrant and explicitly acknowledge the competing one — this argument is inherently about competing principles. Stating the reconciliation shows intellectual honesty and invites rational engagement.

Example 3 — Self-diagnosis of a broken argument

Input from user: "My argument feels wrong but I cannot find the problem. I'm arguing that social media should be regulated, because teenagers are anxious today."

Step 1 — Surfaced warrant: "When teenagers are anxious, social media is harming them."

Test 5 — Coverage check:

Circumstance side: "Teenagers are anxious today" — is this an instance of "social media is harming them"? No. Anxiety is an outcome, not an instance of harm *by social media*. The reason does not fit the warrant's circumstance.

This is the flaw: rising anxiety does not logically implicate social media without a reason that specifically connects the two.

Repair: Revise the reason to: "Teenagers who spend more than three hours daily on social media report significantly higher anxiety rates than those who spend less than one hour." This reason is now an instance of the warrant's circumstance (harm from social media use). Gather evidence: longitudinal survey data showing the correlation with exposure to social media specifically, not screens in general.

View on ClawHub

TERMINAL

clawhub install bookforge-warrant-tester