BP Motion Analysis — HTML Generator

Overview

This skill generates a comprehensive, publication-quality HTML motion analysis document for any British Parliamentary (BP) debate motion. The output is a single self-contained .html file styled for readability, with collapsible sections, responsive design, and print-friendly formatting.

When to Use

User provides a BP motion (THW/THBT/THS/THO/THP/THR format) and wants analysis
User asks for "motion analysis", "debate prep", "case building", or "motion evaluation"
User wants arguments for specific positions in a BP round
User is doing CA/adjudication work and wants to evaluate a motion's balance
User mentions WUDC, Worlds, Euros, or any BP tournament preparation

Workflow

Step 0: Input Validation (before any analysis)

Before doing anything, confirm the input is analyzable:

Input issue	Action
---	---
User gave motion but no BP prefix (e.g. "universities should ban AI")	Ask once: "Should I treat this as THW ban AI in universities, or is it a different format?" Default to THW if no reply.
Motion is in Chinese / another debate format (WSDC, AP, Public Forum, 中国辩论)	Tell the user: this skill is BP-specific. Offer to (a) convert the motion to BP framing, or (b) decline and recommend they use a format-appropriate skill.
Motion is incomplete / ambiguous ("something about immigration")	Do NOT invent a motion. Ask the user to provide the exact wording.
User pasted multiple motions	Pick the most complete one and confirm: "Analyzing motion #1: '[text]'. Run the others after, or pick a different one?"
Motion uses a rare actor (e.g. "This House, as the Iroquois Confederacy…")	Proceed, but in Step A flag that actor knowledge is thin; lean on principled reasoning over empirical claims.
Motion seems to have a missing infoslide (references a specific event/policy without context)	Ask once: "Is there an infoslide for this?" before proceeding.

Only proceed to Step 1 once the motion is unambiguous.

Step 1: Read References

Before generating anything, read the relevant reference files:

references/framework.md     — The full A-through-H analytical structure
references/motion-types.md  — Rules for THW, THBT, THS, THR, THP, actor motions
references/html-template.md — The HTML/CSS template to use for output

Always read framework.md first, then motion-types.md to identify the specific motion type, then html-template.md before writing any HTML.

Step 2: Identify Motion Type

Using the rules in motion-types.md, classify the motion:

THW → Policy motion (Gov has fiat, model required)
THBT [X] should [Y] where X is an actor → Policy motion from actor's perspective
THBT [statement] → Analysis motion (no model, no fiat)
THS/THO → Support/Oppose (no fiat, evaluate probable outcomes)
THP → Preference (Opp bound to defend specific comparison)
THR → Regret (backward-looking, counterfactual required)
Actor motions → Evaluate from actor's values/interests/duties

The motion type determines burdens, fiat powers, and what teams must prove.

Checkpoint 1 — Classification confirmation:

State your classification to the user in one line before proceeding:

> "Reading this as a [TYPE] motion. Gov fiat = [yes/no]. Counterfactual required = [yes/no]. Actor perspective = [yes/the actor named]. Proceeding unless you correct me."

Wait 1 short turn for the user to correct. If the user stays silent or affirms, continue. If they correct, restart Step 2 with their classification. This prevents 30+ minutes of analysis built on the wrong motion type.

Step 3: Check for Infoslide

If the user provides an infoslide with the motion:

Include it prominently in the output
Evaluate it against the five infoslide checks (necessary? true? argument-feeding? clear? sufficient?)
Note its implications for the debate in the analysis

Step 4: Research

Use the WebSearch tool (or WebFetch for specific URLs) to fact-check and find real-world examples. Run 3–6 targeted searches, each on one of:

Key factual claims that arguments might rely on
Historical precedents and case studies
Statistics and data points (prefer primary sources: OECD, World Bank, Pew, academic papers)
Counterexamples that challenge intuitive positions

Aim for 6–10 verified examples that support arguments on both sides. If a search returns nothing usable after 2 reformulations, mark the claim as "unverified — use cautiously" in Step G rather than fabricating a source.

Step 5: Generate the Analysis

Follow the structure in framework.md exactly. The analysis must contain ALL of these sections:

Step A: What the Motion Is About

A.1 Motion Type (classify using motion-types.md)
A.2 Core Controversy (identify 2-3 deep tensions)
A.3 Key Stakeholders (table format)
A.4 Counterfactual / Status Quo

Step B: Exclusive Strategies and Winning Approaches

B.1 Opening Government (OG) — model, core strategy, pre-emption
B.2 Opening Opposition (OO) — core strategy, counter-prop options, rebuttal targets
B.3 Closing Government (CG) — extension opportunities (list 3-4)
B.4 Closing Opposition (CO) — extension opportunities (list 3-4)
Summary box at the end

Step C: Mapping the Burdens

C.1 Motion-Implied Burdens (table: side, burden, what must be proved)
C.2 Analysis-Created Burdens (likely to emerge during debate)
C.3 Likely Weighing Frameworks (table: framework, likely advocated by, how it reshapes burdens)

Step D: Effective Framing

D.1 Government Framing Options (3 named frames with explanation)
D.2 Opposition Framing Options (3 named frames with explanation)

Step E: Position-Specific Arguments

E.1 Government Arguments (2-4 arguments, each assigned to OG or CG)
E.2 Opposition Arguments (2-4 arguments, each assigned to OO or CO)
Each argument uses AREIC or CMILC framework (see framework.md)
Each argument has a position label: "Best for OG", "Best for CG Extension", etc.

Step F: Tournament Room Simulation

F.1 Novice Room (likely approaches, probable ranking, key pitfall)
F.2 Intermediate Room (likely approaches, probable ranking, key pitfall)
F.3 Advanced Room (likely approaches, probable ranking, key pitfall)

Step G: Real-Life Examples

Table with columns: Example, Key Facts, Supports Which Argument, How to Deploy
6-10 fact-checked examples

Step H: Balance Evaluation

H.1 Rule of Five Assessment (table format)
H.2 Top Half vs. Bottom Half Bias
H.3 Bench Bias (double burdens, silver bullets, reality bias, motion breakers)
H.4 Clarity Assessment (+ infoslide evaluation if applicable)
H.5 Accessibility Assessment
H.6 Overall Assessment (balance, depth, clarity, accessibility, extension potential, recommended placement)

Checkpoint 2 — Pre-HTML spot check:

Before generating the full HTML (which is long), deliver a 1-screen preview in chat:

Motion type + status quo (2 sentences)
4 one-line position summaries (OG / OO / CG / CO)
Top 3 framing ideas (one per bench side) in a single line each
Top 3 examples you plan to use

Ask: "Ship HTML on this basis, or adjust?" Continue to Step 6 only after explicit go-ahead (or if user already said "just build it" at the start).

Step 6: Build the HTML

Using the template in html-template.md, generate a single self-contained HTML file. Key requirements:

ALL CSS must be inline in a

BP Motion Analysis

概述