script-analysis-dramaturgical
Comprehensive dramaturgical analysis of screenplays and scripts. Use when asked to analyze, break down, map, or provide feedback on a script. Triggers on requests involving beat mapping, act structure analysis, scene-by-scene breakdown, first-reader reports, production notes, or any comprehensive script coverage. Claude assumes combined roles of aesthete, dramaturgist, narratologist, art historian, cinephile, rhetorician, producer, academic, and first-reader.
Best use case
script-analysis-dramaturgical is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Comprehensive dramaturgical analysis of screenplays and scripts. Use when asked to analyze, break down, map, or provide feedback on a script. Triggers on requests involving beat mapping, act structure analysis, scene-by-scene breakdown, first-reader reports, production notes, or any comprehensive script coverage. Claude assumes combined roles of aesthete, dramaturgist, narratologist, art historian, cinephile, rhetorician, producer, academic, and first-reader.
Teams using script-analysis-dramaturgical should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/script-analysis-dramaturgical/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How script-analysis-dramaturgical Compares
| Feature / Agent | script-analysis-dramaturgical | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Comprehensive dramaturgical analysis of screenplays and scripts. Use when asked to analyze, break down, map, or provide feedback on a script. Triggers on requests involving beat mapping, act structure analysis, scene-by-scene breakdown, first-reader reports, production notes, or any comprehensive script coverage. Claude assumes combined roles of aesthete, dramaturgist, narratologist, art historian, cinephile, rhetorician, producer, academic, and first-reader.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Script Analysis & Dramaturgical Coverage
Comprehensive protocol for ingesting, analyzing, and documenting screenplays and scripts with exhaustive coverage from multiple critical perspectives.
---
## 0. Analyst Role Synthesis
Claude operates as a synthesis of eight distinct analytical perspectives:
```
ROLE_MATRIX:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ANALYST ROLE CONFIGURATION │
├─────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ AESTHETE │ Evaluates beauty, form, style; identifies sensory and │
│ │ formal patterns; assesses visual/sonic imagination │
├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ DRAMATURGIST │ Analyzes structure, rhythm, dramatic tension; identifies │
│ │ dramaturgical problems; suggests structural solutions │
├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ NARRATOLOGIST │ Maps narrative mechanisms; applies formal theory (McKee, │
│ │ Aristotle, etc.); diagnoses causal binding, gap dynamics │
├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ ART HISTORIAN │ Contextualizes within film/art history; identifies │
│ │ influences, movements, lineages; notes intertextuality │
├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ CINEPHILE │ References comparable works; identifies genre conventions; │
│ │ assesses audience expectations and satisfactions │
├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ RHETORICIAN │ Analyzes argument structure, persuasion, theme articulation; │
│ │ evaluates dialogue craft, linguistic patterns │
├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ PRODUCER │ Assesses practical feasibility; identifies budget/casting │
│ │ implications; evaluates market positioning │
├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ ACADEMIC │ Applies theoretical frameworks rigorously; maintains │
│ │ citation discipline; produces scholarship-grade analysis │
├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ FIRST-READER │ Provides emotional response; identifies engagement points │
│ │ and failures; reports subjective experience honestly │
└─────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
### Role Activation
All roles remain active throughout analysis. Role-specific observations are tagged:
```
[AESTHETE]: Observation about form/beauty
[DRAMATURGIST]: Structural intervention
[NARRATOLOGIST]: Mechanism diagnosis
[ART_HIST]: Historical/intertextual note
[CINEPHILE]: Comparable work reference
[RHETORICIAN]: Language/argument analysis
[PRODUCER]: Practical consideration
[ACADEMIC]: Theoretical application
[FIRST-READER]: Emotional/engagement response
```
---
## 1. Ingestion Protocol
### 1.1 Complete Reading Requirement
**CRITICAL**: The entire script must be read and held in working context before any analysis documents are produced.
```
INGESTION_SEQUENCE:
PHASE 1: INITIAL READ
├── Read script completely without annotation
├── Note immediate emotional/engagement responses
└── Capture [FIRST-READER] reactions
PHASE 2: STRUCTURAL READ
├── Identify act breaks (even if unconventional)
├── Mark turning points and structural nodes
└── Note temporal structure and time span
PHASE 3: ANALYTICAL READ
├── Annotate scene-by-scene
├── Tag every beat with function
└── Map character arcs and transformations
PHASE 4: SYNTHESIS
├── Cross-reference observations
├── Identify patterns across readings
└── Formulate diagnostic assessments
```
### 1.2 Metadata Extraction
Extract and document at ingestion:
| Field | Description |
|-------|-------------|
| **Title** | Script title |
| **Draft** | Version/date if available |
| **Format** | Feature / Pilot / Limited Series / Short |
| **Page Count** | Total pages |
| **Line Count** | Total lines (if available) |
| **Scene Count** | Total number of scenes |
| **Time Span** | Diegetic duration |
| **Primary Genre** | Main genre classification |
| **Tone** | Dominant tonal register |
| **Camera Grammar** | If specified (e.g., found footage, surveillance, traditional) |
---
## 2. Deliverable Documents
The complete analysis package consists of **eight core documents** plus **optional supplements**.
### 2.1 Document Overview
```
DELIVERABLE_STRUCTURE:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CORE DOCUMENTS (8) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 1. COVERAGE REPORT Executive summary + recommendation│
│ 2. BEAT MAP Exhaustive scene-by-scene mapping │
│ 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Act/movement architecture │
│ 4. CHARACTER ATLAS All characters + arcs │
│ 5. THEMATIC ARCHITECTURE Theme layers + motif tracking │
│ 6. DIAGNOSTIC REPORT Structural problems + solutions │
│ 7. THEORETICAL CORRESPONDENCE Framework mapping │
│ 8. REVISION ROADMAP Prioritized action items │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ OPTIONAL SUPPLEMENTS │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ A. PRODUCTION NOTES Budget/casting/feasibility │
│ B. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Genre comps and influences │
│ C. DIALOGUE ANALYSIS Language patterns and voice │
│ D. VISUAL GRAMMAR Camera/staging/spectacle │
│ E. MARKET POSITIONING Audience + commercial assessment │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
---
## 3. Document Templates
### 3.1 COVERAGE REPORT
```markdown
# [TITLE] — Coverage Report
**Draft:** [version/date]
**Analyst:** Claude (script-analysis-dramaturgical)
**Date:** [analysis date]
---
## Logline
[1-2 sentence distillation of central dramatic premise]
## Synopsis
[300-500 word plot summary covering all major beats]
## Assessment Matrix
| Category | Rating | Notes |
|----------|--------|-------|
| Concept/Premise | ○○○○○ | |
| Structure | ○○○○○ | |
| Character | ○○○○○ | |
| Dialogue | ○○○○○ | |
| Theme | ○○○○○ | |
| Market Potential | ○○○○○ | |
Rating key: ●●●●● (5) = Exceptional | ●●●●○ (4) = Strong | ●●●○○ (3) = Competent | ●●○○○ (2) = Needs Work | ●○○○○ (1) = Significant Issues
## Recommendation
[ ] RECOMMEND — Ready for production consideration
[ ] CONSIDER — Strong elements, development needed
[ ] PASS — Fundamental issues
## Executive Summary
[2-3 paragraphs synthesizing strengths and concerns]
## Strengths
1. [Specific strength with textual evidence]
2. [Specific strength with textual evidence]
3. [Specific strength with textual evidence]
## Areas for Development
1. [Specific concern with textual evidence and suggested approach]
2. [Specific concern with textual evidence and suggested approach]
3. [Specific concern with textual evidence and suggested approach]
## Comparable Works
- [Title (Year)] — [specific point of comparison]
- [Title (Year)] — [specific point of comparison]
- [Title (Year)] — [specific point of comparison]
---
*Coverage prepared by dramaturgical analysis protocol v1.0*
```
---
### 3.2 BEAT MAP
The beat map is the **exhaustive** document. Every scene receives an entry.
```markdown
# [TITLE] — Complete Beat Map
**Total Scenes:** [N]
**Total Beats:** [N]
**Line/Page Coverage:** [first] to [last]
---
## Beat Map Key
| Field | Description |
|-------|-------------|
| **#** | Beat number (sequential) |
| **Lines/Pages** | Script location |
| **Setting** | Location + time |
| **Characters** | Present in scene |
| **Action** | What happens (objective) |
| **Function** | Structural purpose |
| **Tension** | Intensity level (1-10) |
| **Connector** | Causal relationship to prior beat |
### Connector Key
- **BUT** — Reversal/complication from prior beat
- **THEREFORE** — Consequence of prior beat
- **MEANWHILE** — Parallel action (use sparingly)
- **AND THEN** — Weak/episodic connection (flag for revision)
---
## Beat Map
### ACT [N] — [Act Title]
| # | Lines/Pages | Setting | Characters | Action | Function | Tension | Connector |
|---|-------------|---------|------------|--------|----------|---------|-----------|
| 1 | 1-15 | [location] | [chars] | [what happens] | [why it matters] | 3 | — |
| 2 | 16-42 | [location] | [chars] | [what happens] | [why it matters] | 4 | BUT |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
### Tension Graph
```
TENSION
10 │ ▓▓▓
│ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓
8 │ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓
│ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓
6 │ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓
│ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓
4 │ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓
│ ▓▓▓▓ ▓
2 │▓▓ ▓
└────────────────────────────────────────────────►
ACT I ACT II ACT III BEATS
```
---
## Beat Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total beats | [N] |
| Average tension | [N.N] |
| BUT connectors | [N] ([%]) |
| THEREFORE connectors | [N] ([%]) |
| MEANWHILE connectors | [N] ([%]) |
| AND THEN connectors | [N] ([%]) — **Flag if >10%** |
---
*Beat map generated with complete coverage*
```
---
### 3.3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
```markdown
# [TITLE] — Structural Analysis
---
## I. Macro-Structure Overview
```
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ [TITLE] — STRUCTURAL OVERVIEW │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ [ACT/MOVEMENT 1] [ACT/MOVEMENT 2] [ACT/MOVEMENT 3] [ETC] │
│ [Subtitle] [Subtitle] [Subtitle] │
│ │
│ Lines X-Y Lines Y-Z Lines Z-W │
│ N lines N lines N lines │
│ ~N% ~N% ~N% │
│ │
│ Key Image: Key Image: Key Image: │
│ [description] [description] [description] │
│ │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
## II. Structural Model
Identify which structural model(s) apply:
| Model | Fit | Notes |
|-------|-----|-------|
| Classical Three-Act | ○○○○○ | |
| Five-Act (Shakespearean) | ○○○○○ | |
| Episodic/Picaresque | ○○○○○ | |
| European Art Cinema | ○○○○○ | |
| Circular/Cyclical | ○○○○○ | |
| Parallel/Braided | ○○○○○ | |
| Reverse Chronology | ○○○○○ | |
| Other: [specify] | ○○○○○ | |
## III. Dramatic Spine
```
THESIS STATEMENT:
[If articulated explicitly in script, quote with line reference]
CONTROLLING IDEA:
[1-2 sentence distillation of the script's core argument/meaning]
CENTRAL DRAMATIC QUESTION:
[The question the audience carries through the narrative]
PROTAGONIST:
[Identification + relationship to dramatic question]
ANTAGONIST:
[Identification + relationship to dramatic question]
```
## IV. Movement/Act Breakdown
For each major structural division:
### [Movement/Act N]: [Title]
**Lines:** X-Y
**Pages:** X-Y
**Duration:** ~N% of script
**Opening Image:** [description]
**Closing Image:** [description]
**Function:** [What this section accomplishes structurally]
**Internal Structure:**
```
[ASCII diagram of internal beats/sequences]
```
**Key Turning Points:**
| Beat | Line | Event | Function |
|------|------|-------|----------|
| [name] | [N] | [what happens] | [structural function] |
## V. Turning Points / Structural Nodes
Complete table of all major turning points:
| Node | Line/Page | Event | Structural Function |
|------|-----------|-------|---------------------|
| Hook | | | |
| Inciting Incident | | | |
| Lock-In / Point of No Return | | | |
| First Major Reversal | | | |
| Midpoint | | | |
| Second Major Reversal | | | |
| Dark Night / Crisis | | | |
| Climax | | | |
| Resolution | | | |
## VI. Intensity Mapping
```
INTENSITY
▲
│ [climax]
│ ▓▓▓▓▓
│ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓
│ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓
│ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓▓
│ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓
│ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓
│ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓
│ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓
│ ▓▓▓▓▓ ▓
│ ▓▓▓▓ ▓
│▓▓▓
├────────┬─────────────────┬──────────────────┬──────────────────────►
I II III TIME
[MOVEMENT LABELS]
```
## VII. Proportional Analysis
| Section | Current % | Classical % | Assessment |
|---------|-----------|-------------|------------|
| Setup/Act I | | ~25% | |
| Confrontation/Act II | | ~50% | |
| Resolution/Act III | | ~25% | |
---
*Structural analysis complete*
```
---
### 3.4 CHARACTER ATLAS
```markdown
# [TITLE] — Character Atlas
---
## I. Character Hierarchy
```
CHARACTER_HIERARCHY:
PROTAGONIST(S)
└── [Character Name]
└── [Character Name]
ANTAGONIST(S)
└── [Character Name]
MAJOR SUPPORTING
├── [Character Name]
├── [Character Name]
└── [Character Name]
MINOR SUPPORTING
├── [Character Name]
└── [Character Name]
FUNCTIONAL / BACKGROUND
└── [Listed without detail]
```
## II. Character Profiles
### [CHARACTER NAME]
**Role:** Protagonist / Antagonist / Supporting
**First Appearance:** Line/Page [N]
**Scene Count:** [N] scenes
**Arc Type:**
- [ ] Transformational (internal change)
- [ ] Static (reveals rather than changes)
- [ ] Flat (functional only)
**Opening State:**
[Description of character at script open]
**Closing State:**
[Description of character at script close]
**Want vs. Need:**
- **Want (conscious goal):** [what they pursue]
- **Need (unconscious necessity):** [what they actually need]
**Transformation Summary:**
```
[OPENING STATE] → [CRISIS/CATALYST] → [CLOSING STATE]
```
**Key Scenes:**
| Scene | Line/Page | Function in Arc |
|-------|-----------|-----------------|
| [description] | [N] | [arc function] |
**Relationships:**
| Character | Relationship | Dynamic |
|-----------|--------------|---------|
| [name] | [type] | [how it evolves] |
**Diagnostic Questions:**
1. Does this character have a clearly defined want?
2. Does this character have a clearly defined need (distinct from want)?
3. Does the character make meaningful choices?
4. Does the character change (or meaningfully reveal)?
5. Is the character necessary to the narrative?
---
## III. Ensemble Dynamics
### Relationship Web
```
[ASCII diagram of character relationships]
```
### Power Dynamics Table
| Character | Power Position (Open) | Power Position (Close) | Shift |
|-----------|----------------------|------------------------|-------|
| [name] | High / Mid / Low | High / Mid / Low | ↑ ↓ — |
---
## IV. Character Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total named characters | [N] |
| Characters with arcs | [N] |
| Characters with dialogue | [N] |
| Female characters | [N] |
| Male characters | [N] |
| Other/unspecified | [N] |
| Protagonist scene presence | [N]% |
---
*Character atlas complete*
```
---
### 3.5 THEMATIC ARCHITECTURE
```markdown
# [TITLE] — Thematic Architecture
---
## I. Thematic Layers
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ THEMATIC LAYERS │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ LAYER 1: [PRIMARY THEME] │
│ ├── [Evidence point 1] │
│ ├── [Evidence point 2] │
│ └── [Evidence point 3] │
│ │
│ LAYER 2: [SECONDARY THEME] │
│ ├── [Evidence point 1] │
│ ├── [Evidence point 2] │
│ └── [Evidence point 3] │
│ │
│ LAYER 3: [TERTIARY THEME] │
│ └── [Evidence points] │
│ │
│ [Additional layers as warranted] │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
## II. Controlling Idea Analysis
**Thesis (as statement):**
[Distilled 1-sentence argument of the script]
**Antithesis (as represented in script):**
[The counter-argument the script engages]
**Synthesis (resolution):**
[How the script resolves the dialectic, if at all]
## III. Motif Tracking
| Motif | First Instance | Recurrences | Function |
|-------|----------------|-------------|----------|
| [visual/verbal motif] | Line [N] | Lines [N, N, N] | [what it does] |
## IV. Symbol Glossary
| Symbol | Meaning(s) | Key Instances |
|--------|-----------|---------------|
| [symbol] | [interpretation] | Lines [N, N] |
## V. Thematic Articulation Points
Moments where theme is articulated directly (dialogue, image, action):
| Line/Page | Type | Content | Assessment |
|-----------|------|---------|------------|
| [N] | Dialogue / Image / Action | [quote or description] | Effective / Heavy-handed / Subtle |
---
*Thematic architecture complete*
```
---
### 3.6 DIAGNOSTIC REPORT
```markdown
# [TITLE] — Diagnostic Report
---
## I. Structural Diagnostics
### Causal Binding Test
Apply the But/Therefore test to major beat transitions:
| Transition | Connector | Assessment |
|------------|-----------|------------|
| Beat 1 → Beat 2 | BUT / THEREFORE / AND THEN | ✓ Strong / ✗ Weak |
**Causal Binding Score:** [N]% of transitions are causally bound
### Narrative Momentum Assessment
| Question | Answer | Evidence |
|----------|--------|----------|
| Can beats be reordered without consequence? | Yes / No | [explanation] |
| Does each scene create new information? | Yes / No | [explanation] |
| Are there redundant scenes? | Yes / No | [list if yes] |
## II. Character Diagnostics
### Protagonist Validation
| Question | Answer |
|----------|--------|
| Is the protagonist the most active agent? | |
| Does the protagonist make choices that drive plot? | |
| Does the protagonist face escalating obstacles? | |
| Is the protagonist's transformation earned? | |
### Antagonist Validation
| Question | Answer |
|----------|--------|
| Does the antagonist provide genuine opposition? | |
| Does the antagonist have comprehensible motivation? | |
| Is the antagonist's pressure continuous? | |
## III. Attention Mechanics Diagnostics
From the Attention Mechanics meta-framework:
| Mechanism | Present | Assessment |
|-----------|---------|------------|
| Involuntary response triggers | Yes / No | [which type: comedy, horror, pathos] |
| Anticipation-satisfaction cycles | Yes / No | [where] |
| Prediction-failure-recalibration (jazz mode) | Yes / No | [where] |
| Causal binding | Strong / Moderate / Weak | |
| Density compensation | Adequate / Inadequate | |
## IV. Identified Issues
### Critical (Structural)
Issues that affect the narrative's fundamental coherence:
1. **[Issue Title]**
- **Location:** Lines/Pages [N-N]
- **Description:** [what's wrong]
- **Impact:** [why it matters]
- **Suggested Approach:** [how to address]
### Important (Character/Theme)
Issues that affect depth without breaking structure:
1. **[Issue Title]**
- **Location:** [N-N]
- **Description:** [what's wrong]
- **Suggested Approach:** [how to address]
### Polish (Craft)
Line-level or scene-level refinements:
1. **[Issue Title]**
- **Location:** [N]
- **Note:** [observation]
## V. Proportional Issues
| Section | Current | Target | Action |
|---------|---------|--------|--------|
| [section] | [N] lines | [N] lines | Expand / Compress |
---
*Diagnostic report complete*
```
---
### 3.7 THEORETICAL CORRESPONDENCE
```markdown
# [TITLE] — Theoretical Correspondence
---
## I. Framework Application
How this script relates to established narrative frameworks:
### Aristotelian Analysis
| Element | Poetics Requirement | Script Implementation | Assessment |
|---------|--------------------|-----------------------|------------|
| Mimesis | Action over character | | |
| Hamartia | Protagonist error | | |
| Peripeteia | Reversal | | |
| Anagnorisis | Recognition | | |
| Catharsis | Purgation | | |
| Unity of Action | Single through-line | | |
### McKee Framework
| Element | McKee Principle | Script Implementation |
|---------|----------------|-----------------------|
| Controlling Idea | Value + Cause | |
| Inciting Incident | Upset of balance | |
| Progressive Complications | Escalating obstacles | |
| Crisis | Dilemma forcing choice | |
| Climax | Irreversible action | |
| Resolution | New equilibrium | |
### South Park But/Therefore
**Causal Chain Diagram:**
```
[EVENT A]
↓ THEREFORE
[EVENT B]
↓ BUT
[EVENT C]
↓ THEREFORE
[...]
```
### Additional Frameworks (as relevant)
- **Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Three Obstacles):** Is each scene operating on multiple obstacle layers?
- **Larry David (Cascading Consequences):** Are minor choices generating major complications?
- **Kubrick (Subconscious Engagement):** Are non-verbal/visual elements carrying meaning?
- **Bharata Muni (Rasa):** Which dominant emotional essence is being cultivated?
## II. Genre Contract
| Genre Element | Contract Expectation | Script Delivery | Assessment |
|---------------|---------------------|-----------------|------------|
| [convention 1] | [what audience expects] | [what script provides] | Met / Subverted / Violated |
---
*Theoretical correspondence complete*
```
---
### 3.8 REVISION ROADMAP
```markdown
# [TITLE] — Revision Roadmap
---
## Priority Matrix
```
IMPACT
Low High
┌──────────┬──────────┐
Low │ IGNORE │ POLISH │
EFFORT ├──────────┼──────────┤
High │ DEFER │ CRITICAL │
└──────────┴──────────┘
```
## I. Critical Priority (High Impact / Address First)
Structural issues that must be resolved before production consideration:
| # | Issue | Location | Action | Effort |
|---|-------|----------|--------|--------|
| 1 | [issue] | [lines] | [specific action] | [estimated scope] |
## II. Important Priority (High Impact / Second Pass)
Character and theme issues that deepen the work:
| # | Issue | Location | Action |
|---|-------|----------|--------|
| 1 | [issue] | [lines] | [specific action] |
## III. Polish Priority (Refinement)
Line-level and craft improvements:
| # | Issue | Location | Action |
|---|-------|----------|--------|
| 1 | [issue] | [lines] | [specific action] |
## IV. Suggested Revision Sequence
1. **Pass 1 — Structure:** Address critical structural issues
2. **Pass 2 — Character:** Deepen arcs and relationships
3. **Pass 3 — Theme:** Strengthen thematic articulation
4. **Pass 4 — Dialogue:** Polish language and voice
5. **Pass 5 — Format:** Clean formatting, typos, continuity
## V. Questions for the Artist
Issues requiring creative decision rather than technical fix:
1. [Question about intention or direction]
2. [Question about interpretation]
3. [Question about scope]
---
*Revision roadmap complete*
```
---
## 4. Workflow Execution
### 4.1 Standard Workflow
```
ANALYSIS_WORKFLOW:
STEP 1: INGESTION
├── Read complete script (no partial analysis)
├── Extract metadata
└── Record first-reader responses
STEP 2: BEAT MAPPING
├── Scene-by-scene annotation
├── Assign structural functions
└── Apply causal binding connectors
STEP 3: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
├── Identify act/movement breaks
├── Map turning points
└── Generate structural diagrams
STEP 4: CHARACTER ATLAS
├── Profile all named characters
├── Map relationships
└── Track arcs
STEP 5: THEMATIC ARCHITECTURE
├── Identify theme layers
├── Track motifs
└── Note articulation points
STEP 6: DIAGNOSTICS
├── Apply structural tests
├── Identify issues
└── Categorize by severity
STEP 7: THEORETICAL CORRESPONDENCE
├── Apply relevant frameworks
└── Assess genre contract
STEP 8: REVISION ROADMAP
├── Prioritize issues
└── Sequence actions
STEP 9: COVERAGE REPORT
└── Synthesize into executive document
```
### 4.2 Delivery Options
Offer artist choice of delivery:
| Option | Contents |
|--------|----------|
| **Full Package** | All 8 core documents |
| **Executive** | Coverage Report + Revision Roadmap only |
| **Structural Focus** | Beat Map + Structural Analysis + Diagnostics |
| **Character Focus** | Character Atlas + relevant diagnostics |
| **Custom** | Artist-specified selection |
---
## 5. Quality Standards
### 5.1 Completeness Checklist
Before delivery, verify:
- [ ] Every scene/beat is mapped (no gaps)
- [ ] All named characters are profiled
- [ ] All turning points are identified
- [ ] Diagnostic questions are answered with evidence
- [ ] Issues include specific line/page references
- [ ] Revision items include actionable suggestions
- [ ] ASCII diagrams render correctly
### 5.2 Role-Tag Coverage
Ensure all analyst roles have contributed observations:
- [ ] [AESTHETE] — At least 3 observations
- [ ] [DRAMATURGIST] — At least 5 observations
- [ ] [NARRATOLOGIST] — Framework application complete
- [ ] [ART_HIST] — Historical context if relevant
- [ ] [CINEPHILE] — At least 3 comparable works
- [ ] [RHETORICIAN] — Dialogue assessment
- [ ] [PRODUCER] — Practical notes if requested
- [ ] [ACADEMIC] — Theoretical rigor maintained
- [ ] [FIRST-READER] — Honest engagement response
### 5.3 Terminology Standards
Use consistent terminology throughout:
| Term | Definition |
|------|------------|
| **Beat** | Smallest unit of dramatic action (single exchange of behavior) |
| **Scene** | Continuous action in single location/time |
| **Sequence** | Group of scenes forming a unit of rising action |
| **Act** | Major structural division |
| **Movement** | Alternative to "act" for non-classical structures |
| **Turning Point** | Moment of irreversible change |
| **Node** | Structural landmark (hook, inciting incident, etc.) |
---
## 6. Integration Notes
### 6.1 Narratological Algorithm Integration
This skill draws on established narratological algorithms:
| Algorithm | Application |
|-----------|-------------|
| McKee | Gap analysis, progressive complications |
| Aristotle | Unity, catharsis, recognition/reversal |
| South Park | But/Therefore causal test |
| Phoebe Waller-Bridge | Three-obstacle layering |
| Larry David | Cascading consequences |
| Attention Mechanics | Engagement diagnosis |
### 6.2 Output Format
All documents should be delivered as markdown files with:
- ASCII diagrams for visual structures
- Tables for data-dense sections
- Code blocks for formulas and tests
- Consistent heading hierarchy
---
## Reference Files
- **[templates/coverage-template.md](templates/coverage-template.md)** — Coverage report template
- **[templates/beat-map-template.md](templates/beat-map-template.md)** — Beat mapping template
- **[templates/structural-template.md](templates/structural-template.md)** — Structural analysis template
- **[templates/character-template.md](templates/character-template.md)** — Character atlas template
- **[templates/diagnostic-template.md](templates/diagnostic-template.md)** — Diagnostic report template
---
*Skill: script-analysis-dramaturgical v1.0*Related Skills
transcript-promotion
Use when substantive inline content delivered during a session lives only in the JSONL transcript and needs promotion to a durable, surface-discoverable, remote-backed artifact. Triggers on "persist this", "promote to a plan", "make this survive context exit", "engine log N", or when closeout flags a deliverable as "inline only — not file-persisted". Provides the four-phase extract → frontmatter → propagate → register protocol. Sibling to artifact-resurfacing (which reconciles citations pointing at nothing); this one rescues content that exists without citation.
market-gap-analysis
Analyze market positioning, identify underserved segments, and map competitive gaps using systematic frameworks. Covers SWOT analysis, competitive landscape mapping, opportunity scoring, and positioning strategy. Triggers on market analysis, competitive research, or gap identification requests.
taxonomy-modeling-design
Phase 2 of the pentaphase structural-overhaul protocol. Classifies entities, standardizes attributes, establishes relationships, and designs the access framework. Use when the user invokes phase 2 of an overhaul, asks to "design the taxonomy" or "model the structure", or has completed a landscape audit and is ready to redesign. Consumes phase-1-landscape-report.md; produces phase-2-taxonomy-model.md.
systemic-ingestion-normalization
Phase 4 of the pentaphase structural-overhaul protocol. Purges redundancies, enriches and aligns legacy entities to the new schema, executes phased ingestion into the new environment, and audits integrity. Use when the user invokes phase 4 of an overhaul, asks to "migrate the data" or "ingest into the new system", or has a configured environment ready to accept legacy entities. Consumes phase-3-environment-spec.md; produces phase-4-ingestion-report.md.
system-environment-configuration
Phase 3 of the pentaphase structural-overhaul protocol. Translates the taxonomy model into objective technical criteria, evaluates candidate mechanisms or frameworks, instantiates the chosen architecture, and programs validation rules. Use when the user invokes phase 3 of an overhaul, asks to "select a system" or "configure the environment", or has a taxonomy model and is ready to choose technology. Consumes phase-2-taxonomy-model.md; produces phase-3-environment-spec.md.
pentaphase-orchestrator
Threads the full five-phase structural-overhaul protocol — landscape discovery, taxonomy design, environment configuration, systemic ingestion, governance evolution — for any substrate the user names. Use when the user requests a structural overhaul, system redesign, or end-to-end restructuring of a documentation system, asset registry, code monorepo, knowledge base, or operational workflow; or when they explicitly invoke the pentaphase methodology. Coordinates handoffs between phase-skills and seats validation gates between phases.
landscape-discovery-audit
Phase 1 of the pentaphase structural-overhaul protocol. Inventories assets, maps current flow, identifies friction, and defines value metrics for any substrate. Use when the user invokes phase 1 of an overhaul, requests a baseline audit, asks to "discover the landscape" of a system, or wants to understand current state before redesigning. Produces phase-1-landscape-report.md.
governance-evolution-protocol
Phase 5 of the pentaphase structural-overhaul protocol. Codifies operational protocols, onboards the ecosystem of participants, programs behavior monitoring, and establishes an iteration cadence so the substrate evolves rather than calcifies. Use when the user invokes phase 5 of an overhaul, asks to "establish governance" or "lock in the protocols", or has completed ingestion and is ready to declare the substrate operational. Consumes phase-4-ingestion-report.md; produces phase-5-governance-charter.md, which closes the protocol.
dimension-surfacing
Surfaces the parallel domain dimensions implicit in a dense or minimal prompt. Use when a user prompt is small on the surface but plainly implies multiple independent domains needing different expertise; when explicitly invoked by the coliseum-orchestrator skill as Phase 1; or when the user asks "what dimensions does this prompt encode" or "what axes does this break into." Produces a named dimension set where each dimension is independently executable and not a paraphrase of another.
coliseum-dispatch
Dispatches a composed set of assignment envelopes to domain-expert subagents in parallel, in a single message with multiple Agent tool calls. Enforces the no-pingpong gate via the pingpong-detector agent before any dispatch fires. Use when invoked by the coliseum-orchestrator as Phase 3; when envelopes are already composed and the next step is parallel execution; or when the user asks to "fan out" or "dispatch in parallel." Produces a dispatch log capturing what was sent, when, and where returns land.
assignment-composition
Wraps each surfaced dimension as a self-contained 9-section autonomous-work-assignment envelope — scope, context, success criteria, allowed tools, return format, handoff — all the recipient subagent needs to execute without coming back. Use when invoked by coliseum-orchestrator as Phase 2; when dimensions are named and the next step is to make each independently dispatchable; or when the user asks "compose this as an assignment." The no-pingpong gate validates each envelope before dispatch.
workspace-autopsy-governance
Conducts a full automated autopsy of the current workspace directory to map files, identifies structural issues, proposes a restructuring plan (the signal), and establishes unified governance using templates. Use this skill when a user asks to map, restructure, reorganize, or apply new governance to an existing messy repository.