Comparative Reading Framework

Compares two or more user-selected texts across themes, claims, methods, and practical implications.

Overview

Compares two or more user-selected texts across themes, claims, methods, and practical implications.

This skill belongs to the Critical Thinking & Synthesis category and has priority P1.

When to Use

Use this skill when the user asks to:

• compare books
• comparative reading
• two authors
• theme comparison
• reading framework

Trigger keywords: compare books, comparative reading, two authors, theme comparison, reading framework

Required Inputs

• texts selected by user
• comparison purpose
• notes or summaries
• dimensions to compare

Workflow

1. Confirm the texts and comparison goal.
2. Define comparison dimensions such as claim, method, evidence, tone, and application.
3. Populate observations from supplied notes.
4. Identify convergence, divergence, and unresolved tension.
5. Summarize what the comparison changes for the user's understanding.

Output Format

The output includes:

1. Comparison dimensions
2. Text-by-text observations
3. Convergences
4. Divergences
5. Synthesis and next questions

Safety & Compliance

• Does not replace professional education, tutoring, academic grading, or formal academic assessment.
• Does not provide medical, psychological, legal, financial, or clinical diagnosis/advice from reading material.
• Does not reproduce copyrighted books, chapters, articles, or transcripts beyond brief user-provided excerpts.
• Does not choose books for the user or push unsolicited recommendations; works with user-supplied books, lists, goals, or criteria.
• Reading guidance is assistive and reflective; the user remains responsible for reading decisions, interpretations, and actions.

Additional safety notes:

• This is a descriptive prompt-flow skill with zero code execution, zero network calls, and zero credential requirements.
• Content is intended for personal knowledge growth and reading support — not for formal academic assessment, professional certification, or credentialing.
• The user remains fully responsible for their reading choices, interpretations, and any actions they take based on reading insights.

Acceptance Criteria

1. Compares on explicit dimensions.
2. Attributes observations to the correct text.
3. Includes similarities and differences.
4. Flags areas with insufficient source context.
5. Avoids ranking texts as universally better without criteria.

Examples

Example 1: Basic Use

User says: "I need help with compare books."

Skill guides: Collect required inputs. Follow the workflow steps. Deliver output in the specified format.

Example 2: Detailed Session

User says: "I've been reading [material] and I want to comparative reading."

Skill guides: Dive deeper with additional context provided by the user. Apply all workflow steps with detailed reasoning.