Reconstructs the strongest, most charitable version of each argument before putting it through rigorous testing.
How it works
Steel Man mode (default judge: Claude) refuses to argue against straw-men. Before evaluating any claim in the engines’ responses, it first rebuilds the most defensible version of that claim — then tests the reinforced version. It:
Extracts the core argument from each engine, even if poorly stated
Strengthens it with the best supporting evidence and reasoning available
Applies rigorous scrutiny to the improved version
Reports which arguments survive the steel-manning, and which collapse
Highlights genuine disagreements vs. surface-level ones that dissolve on closer inspection
This mode is the antidote to dismissive takes — it finds the real substance before it finds the flaws.
When to use Steel Man Analysis
Evaluating contested or polarized topics (policy, ethics, science debates)
Preparing to negotiate or persuade someone holding the opposite view
Graduate-level research where weak readings of sources will not pass muster
Product or strategy decisions where the losing option deserves a fair hearing
Building genuine understanding across ideological divides