@diottodev/runic 1.0.0 → 1.1.0

package/research/syllabus/commands/cs-syllabus.md

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+---
+name: "cs-syllabus"
+description: "/cs:syllabus <syllabus-file-or-paste> — Generate curated supplementary reading list from any course syllabus. 3-Q grill-me (input format + audience + year range) + grouping checkpoint → Consensus searches per section with applied-domain weaving → .docx via bundled JS script with audience-calibrated summaries + Bloom higher-order discussion questions."
+---
+
+# /cs:syllabus — Course Supplementary Reading List
+
+**Command:** `/cs:syllabus <syllabus-file-or-paste>`
+
+The `cs-syllabus` persona produces a `.docx` reading list of recent peer-reviewed research per course section.
+
+## When to Run
+
+- Adding supplementary readings to an existing course
+- Updating a syllabus with current research
+- Checking what's recent in your field for course planning
+- Even casual mentions when a syllabus is attached
+
+## Forcing Intake (3 Questions, One at a Time)
+
+| Q | Asks | Notes |
+|---|---|---|
+| Q1 | Syllabus input: file path / pasted content / image | refuses missing syllabus |
+| Q2 | Course audience: undergrad-intro / undergrad-advanced / grad-masters / grad-doctoral / professional / mixed | drives summary jargon + discussion-question complexity |
+| Q3 | Year range: 1 / 2 / 5 years | drives `year_min` on every Consensus search; default 2 |
+
+## What You Get
+
+```
+reading_list_<course-slug>_<YYYY-MM-DD>.docx
+
+Structure:
+- Title page (course name, subtitle, date)
+- Introduction (with Consensus app link)
+- Course Learning Outcomes (boxed section)
+- Sections (6-12, from grouping):
+    Each section = numbered papers, each with:
+      - Clickable hyperlinked title
+      - Author / journal / year (italic)
+      - Summary (plain language, audience-calibrated)
+      - Discussion Question (Bloom higher-order, tied to learning outcome)
+- Footer (generation metadata)
+```
+
+## Grouping Checkpoint (After Phase 2)
+
+After parsing the syllabus, the skill **halts** with a forcing-options prompt:
+
+```
+Proposed sections: [list with item counts]. Pick one:
+  1. Looks good — proceed with these sections
+  2. Merge sections [X] and [Y]
+  3. Split section [X] into two
+  4. Add a section for [topic]
+  5. Remove section [X]
+```
+
+This is the last cheap moment to correct course before search budget is consumed. **Refuses to start Phase 3 without explicit user choice.**
+
+## Discipline
+
+- **One intake Q per turn.** Never bundle.
+- **Halt at grouping checkpoint.** No Phase 3 without user.
+- **Sequential Consensus.** 1 q/sec.
+- **Applied-domain weaving** — search "enzyme kinetics food processing" not just "enzyme kinetics". Boosts paper relevance dramatically.
+- **Audience-calibrated summaries** — undergrad-intro defines every term; grad-doctoral assumes technical fluency.
+- **Bloom higher-order discussion questions** — apply / analyze / evaluate. NOT recall ("what did the authors find?").
+- **Source discipline** — only Consensus session results. Training knowledge labeled.
+- **Three-count tracking** — sent / received / cited.
+- **Bundled JS DOCX generator** — don't inline 300 lines of layout code.
+
+## Quality Bars
+
+### Summary
+
+| ✅ Good | ❌ Bad |
+|---|---|
+| "This review maps how different diets — Mediterranean, Nordic, vegetarian — reshape the types of fat molecules circulating in your blood, with implications for heart disease risk." | "This paper reviews lipidomic profiles across dietary interventions and their cardiometabolic implications." (Too jargon-heavy) |
+
+### Discussion Question
+
+| ✅ Good | ❌ Bad |
+|---|---|
+| "If dietary fat quality can reshape your lipoprotein lipidome, what does this suggest about the biochemical basis for dietary guidelines recommending unsaturated over saturated fats?" | "What did the authors find?" (Just recall) |
+
+## Workflow
+
+```bash
+# Phase 0 intake (Q1-Q3)
+python ../skills/syllabus/scripts/citation_tracker.py --action start --session NAME
+
+# Phase 1 parse (PDF/DOCX/text/image-appropriate reader)
+# Phase 2 group + CHECKPOINT (wait for user)
+python ../skills/syllabus/scripts/topic_grouper.py --topics-file /tmp/topics.json
+
+# Phase 3 search (sequential Consensus 1 q/sec, applied-domain weaving)
+# Phase 4 write summaries + discussion questions
+python ../skills/syllabus/scripts/discussion_question_validator.py --questions-file /tmp/qs.json
+
+# Phase 5 generate .docx via bundled script
+node ../skills/syllabus/scripts/generate_reading_list.js \
+  --input /tmp/data.json \
+  --output /path/to/reading_list_<course>_<date>.docx
+
+# Phase 6 deliver
+python ../skills/syllabus/scripts/citation_tracker.py --action close --session NAME
+```
+
+## Trigger Phrases
+
+- "syllabus reading list"
+- "find papers for my course"
+- "create a reading list from this syllabus"
+- "recent research for my class"
+- "supplementary readings"
+- "find journal articles for these topics"
+- "what recent papers cover this material"
+- "any new research on these course topics"
+- "update my syllabus with recent papers"
+- Casual mentions when syllabus is attached
+
+## Anti-Patterns Rejected
+
+- Parallelizing Consensus calls (rate limit)
+- Searching topics without applied-domain angle (poor relevance)
+- Padding sections with fabricated entries when Consensus thin
+- Generic discussion questions ("What did the authors find?")
+- Jargon-heavy summaries unsuitable for course audience
+- Skipping group-and-confirm step
+- Truncating Consensus URLs in hyperlinks
+- Inlining 300 lines of docx-generation JavaScript in skill body
+
+## Related
+
+- Agent: [`cs-syllabus`](../agents/cs-syllabus.md)
+- Skill: [`syllabus`](../skills/syllabus/SKILL.md)
+- Source spec: [`megaprompts/10-syllabus-megaprompt.md`](../../../megaprompts/10-syllabus-megaprompt.md)
+- Siblings: `/cs:litreview`, `/cs:grants`, `/cs:patent`, `/cs:dossier`, `/cs:pulse`
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Source:** Path-B direct conversion of `megaprompts/10-syllabus-megaprompt.md`

package/research/syllabus/skills/syllabus/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,293 @@
+---
+name: syllabus
+description: "Generates a curated supplementary reading list from any course syllabus using Consensus academic search. Grill-me intake (syllabus input format + course audience + year range) plus a grouping forcing-options checkpoint before any search runs — so the reading list matches the course's level and recency need. Parses the syllabus to extract topics and learning outcomes, searches Consensus for recent peer-reviewed papers per topic, and produces a professionally formatted .docx with clickable Consensus links, plain-language summaries calibrated to audience level, and Bloom-higher-order discussion questions tied to course learning goals. Triggers whenever a user uploads a syllabus, course outline, or curriculum document and wants supplementary readings. Also triggers on: 'syllabus reading list', 'find papers for my course', 'create a reading list from this syllabus', 'recent research for my class', 'supplementary readings', 'find journal articles for these topics', 'what recent papers cover this material', 'any new research on these course topics', 'update my syllabus with recent papers'. Even casual mentions when a syllabus is attached should trigger this skill."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  source_spec: "megaprompts/10-syllabus-megaprompt.md"
+  build_pattern: "Path B (direct conversion)"
+  research_pack_convention: "Agent Integrity Rules verbatim per PR #657 audit; bundled-JS-DOCX-generator variant"
+  version: 1.0.0
+---
+
+# Syllabus — Course Supplementary Reading List
+
+> **Portability:** Requires a Consensus MCP connection, Node.js with `docx` package, and file reading capability for the syllabus. Works in Claude Code CLI natively. In Claude.ai with Consensus MCP + Code Execution + file upload, the workflow is supported.
+
+For an instructor or student with a course syllabus, produce a professional supplementary reading list as `.docx` containing recent peer-reviewed papers per course section.
+
+## Architectural Pattern: Bundled Script
+
+This skill uses a **bundled JavaScript helper script** for DOCX generation rather than inlining the 300+ lines of layout code:
+
+- DOCX generation logic is reusable + complex
+- Better separation of concerns: skill = orchestration + intelligence; script = mechanical document assembly
+- Token-efficient: skill doesn't re-derive layout each run
+- Easier to maintain and version
+
+The bundled script is at `scripts/generate_reading_list.js`. The skill orchestrates the pipeline + invokes the script with JSON input.
+
+## Agent Integrity Rules (Research-Pack Convention)
+
+Locked verbatim per PR #657 audit.
+
+- **Only use what Consensus returns.** Every paper title, author, journal, year, URL must come from this session's tool calls. Training-knowledge papers labeled `[Not from Consensus — model knowledge]` and excluded.
+- **Confirm before moving on.** A search isn't complete until response received and inspected.
+- **Track three counts.** Queries sent / papers received / papers cited. Surface in audit summary.
+- **Surface gaps, don't fill them.** Section with one paper + note about limited results > section padded with fabrications.
+
+## Phase 0: Grill-Me Intake (3 forcing questions)
+
+### Q1 (root) — Syllabus input
+
+> **Provide the syllabus — pick one:**
+>
+> 1. File path (PDF, DOCX, text) — I'll read it
+> 2. Pasted content — paste below
+> 3. Image of a printed syllabus — attach the image
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* Each format needs a different reader (PDF / DOCX parser / vision). Picking upfront prevents wasted attempts.
+
+Forcing choice. Refuse to start without a syllabus.
+
+### Q2 (depends on Q1) — Course audience
+
+> **Course audience — pick one:**
+>
+> 1. Undergraduate (intro level)
+> 2. Undergraduate (advanced / upper division)
+> 3. Graduate (Masters / early PhD)
+> 4. Graduate (doctoral / advanced)
+> 5. Professional / continuing education
+> 6. Mixed
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* Audience dictates summary jargon level and discussion-question complexity. Undergrad summaries define every term; grad summaries assume technical fluency. Discussion questions for undergrads test analysis; for grads test critique and extension.
+
+See [`references/audience_calibration.md`](references/audience_calibration.md) for the canon.
+
+### Q3 (depends on Q1) — Year range
+
+> **Year range for papers — pick one:**
+>
+> 1. Last 1 year (most recent only)
+> 2. Last 2 years (default — recent + a year of context)
+> 3. Last 5 years (broader, includes foundational recent work)
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* Reading lists go stale fast. 1-year filters keep things fresh; 5-year filters surface foundational recent work that's already standard. Drives the year_min parameter on every Consensus search.
+
+Forcing choice with default (last 2 years).
+
+**Stop condition:** 3 questions max before Phase 1. The post-Phase-2 group-and-confirm checkpoint is its own grill-me moment.
+
+## Phase 1: Parse the Syllabus
+
+Per Q1 input format:
+
+- **PDF**: use PDF reader; extract text
+- **DOCX**: use pandoc or DOCX parser; extract text
+- **Text/pasted**: read directly
+- **Image**: use vision; extract text
+
+From extracted text:
+1. Course title + instructor + term
+2. Topic list (lecture titles, week-by-week breakdown, etc.)
+3. Learning outcomes (if explicit; if missing, infer 3-5 from description)
+
+Mark inferred learning outcomes as `[inferred]` in the DOCX.
+
+## Phase 2: Group Topics + Confirm with User
+
+### Group via topic_grouper.py
+
+Use `scripts/topic_grouper.py` to cluster related topics into 6-12 sections. Heuristic: closely-related topics merge; cross-cutting topics get their own section.
+
+### Group-and-Confirm Checkpoint (Forcing Options)
+
+After grouping, present:
+
+> **Proposed sections: [list with item counts]. Pick one:**
+>
+> 1. "Looks good — proceed with these sections"
+> 2. "Merge sections [X] and [Y]"
+> 3. "Split section [X] into two"
+> 4. "Add a section for [topic]"
+> 5. "Remove section [X]"
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* Grouping drives search allocation. Wrong grouping wastes the search budget on bad clusters. This is the **last cheap moment** to correct course before searches consume Consensus calls.
+
+**Refuse to start Phase 3 without explicit user choice.**
+
+## Phase 3: Search Consensus per Section
+
+Sequential, 1 q/sec. 1-2 queries per section.
+
+### Applied-Domain Weaving (Critical)
+
+Don't just search the topic — **search the topic + applied domain**:
+
+| ❌ Generic | ✅ Applied-domain |
+|---|---|
+| "enzyme kinetics" | "enzyme kinetics food processing applications" |
+| "machine learning" | "machine learning clinical decision support" |
+| "thermodynamics" | "thermodynamics renewable energy systems" |
+| "social network analysis" | "social network analysis public health interventions" |
+
+Boosts paper relevance dramatically. See [`references/applied_domain_weaving.md`](references/applied_domain_weaving.md) for the canon.
+
+### Per-Section Pattern
+
+```
+For each section:
+  1. Construct query: "{topic-keywords} {applied-domain-angle}" + year_min from Q3
+  2. Submit to Consensus (sequential, 1 q/sec gap enforced by citation_tracker)
+  3. Receive results
+  4. (If thin) submit one fallback query without applied-domain angle
+  5. Select 1-3 papers per section (15-25 total across all sections)
+```
+
+### Selection Priorities
+
+1. **Relevance** — paper directly addresses the section topic
+2. **Reviews / meta-analyses** — synthesize the field
+3. **Citation count** — established work
+4. **Applied-domain connection** — tied to the course's domain (e.g., engineering vs theory)
+
+## Phase 4: Write Summaries + Discussion Questions
+
+### Summary writing
+
+Per paper:
+- Plain language (calibrated to audience from Q2)
+- 2-3 sentences
+- Define jargon if undergraduate audience; assume fluency if graduate
+
+### Quality bars
+
+| ✅ Good summary | ❌ Bad summary |
+|---|---|
+| "This review maps how different diets — Mediterranean, Nordic, vegetarian — reshape the types of fat molecules circulating in your blood, with implications for heart disease risk." | "This paper reviews lipidomic profiles across dietary interventions and their cardiometabolic implications." |
+
+### Discussion question writing
+
+Per paper:
+- Bloom **higher-order** (apply / analyze / evaluate)
+- Tied to a specific course learning outcome
+- Promotes discussion, not just recall
+
+| ✅ Good question | ❌ Bad question |
+|---|---|
+| "If dietary fat quality can reshape your lipoprotein lipidome, what does this suggest about the biochemical basis for dietary guidelines recommending unsaturated over saturated fats?" | "What did the authors find?" (Just recall) |
+
+Use `scripts/discussion_question_validator.py` to flag recall-only questions.
+
+## Phase 5: Generate .docx via Bundled Script
+
+```bash
+node ../scripts/generate_reading_list.js \
+  --input /tmp/syllabus_data.json \
+  --output /path/to/reading_list_<course>_<date>.docx
+```
+
+The script accepts JSON with this schema:
+
+```json
+{
+  "courseTitle": "string",
+  "courseSubtitle": "string",
+  "generatedDate": "string",
+  "yearRange": "string",
+  "introText": "string",
+  "learningOutcomes": ["string", ...],
+  "sections": [
+    {
+      "heading": "string",
+      "papers": [
+        {
+          "title": "string",
+          "authors": "string",
+          "journal": "string",
+          "year": number,
+          "url": "string",
+          "summary": "string",
+          "question": "string"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "auditLog": {
+    "totalQueriesSent": number,
+    "totalPapersReceived": number,
+    "totalPapersCited": number,
+    "toolConstraints": "string",
+    "searchDetails": [
+      {
+        "section": "string",
+        "query": "string",
+        "papersReturned": number,
+        "papersSelected": number,
+        "status": "string"
+      }
+    ],
+    "failures": []
+  }
+}
+```
+
+The script handles:
+- `docx` package require with multi-location fallback
+- Title page, intro with Consensus link, learning outcomes box, numbered papers per section
+- `ExternalHyperlink` with full Consensus URLs (never truncated)
+- `LevelFormat.BULLET` for lists (not unicode bullets)
+- Footer with generation metadata
+- Input validation (missing fields → graceful error)
+
+See [`references/bundled_script_pattern.md`](references/bundled_script_pattern.md) for why bundled vs inline.
+
+## Phase 6: Deliver
+
+- File path
+- Audit summary in chat: "Saved {file}. {N} sections × {M} papers / {K} cited. Plan tier: {tier}."
+- Validate: `python scripts/office/validate.py <docx>`
+
+## Tooling
+
+| Script | Role |
+|---|---|
+| `scripts/citation_tracker.py` | Consensus three-count audit + 1s sequential discipline at `~/.syllabus_sessions/<session>.json` |
+| `scripts/topic_grouper.py` | Heuristic 6-12 section grouping from extracted topics |
+| `scripts/discussion_question_validator.py` | Bloom higher-order quality check; flags recall-only questions |
+| `scripts/generate_reading_list.js` | **Bundled Node.js DOCX generator** — JSON input → .docx output |
+
+## References
+
+- [`references/applied_domain_weaving.md`](references/applied_domain_weaving.md) — search-quality canon (7+ sources)
+- [`references/audience_calibration.md`](references/audience_calibration.md) — undergrad vs grad summary jargon (7+ sources)
+- [`references/bundled_script_pattern.md`](references/bundled_script_pattern.md) — why bundle vs inline (7+ sources)
+
+## Error Handling
+
+| Failure | Behavior |
+|---|---|
+| Consensus rate-limit hit | Wait 3s, retry once, log |
+| Search returns 0 for a section | Note section as "limited results — consider manual supplementation" |
+| 3 consecutive failures | Stop, alert user, share collected so far |
+| `docx` package not installed | Script attempts `npm install`; if still failing, fail with clear message |
+| DOCX validation fails | Unpack XML, log issue, ask user to retry |
+| Syllabus format unsupported | List supported formats, ask user to convert |
+| Learning outcomes can't be extracted | Infer 3-5 from course description; mark as inferred in document |
+
+## Anti-Patterns To Reject
+
+- Parallelizing Consensus calls (rate limit)
+- Searching topics without applied-domain angle (poor relevance)
+- Padding sections with fabricated entries when Consensus returns thin
+- Generic discussion questions ("What did the authors find?")
+- Jargon-heavy summaries unsuitable for the course's audience level
+- Skipping the group-and-confirm step (wastes searches)
+- Truncating Consensus URLs in hyperlinks
+- Inlining 300 lines of docx-generation JavaScript in the skill body (use bundled script)
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Source spec:** [`megaprompts/10-syllabus-megaprompt.md`](../../../../megaprompts/10-syllabus-megaprompt.md)
+**Build pattern:** Path B (direct conversion). Bundled-JS-DOCX-generator variant.

package/research/syllabus/skills/syllabus/references/applied_domain_weaving.md

@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+# Applied-Domain Weaving — The Search-Quality Multiplier
+
+This reference answers exactly one decision: **why does the syllabus skill always weave the applied domain into Consensus queries, and what makes a generic search produce thin results?**
+
+## The Core Insight
+
+A query like `"enzyme kinetics"` returns **review papers and theoretical treatments** — useful for a biochemistry course but unhelpful for a *food science* course where students need to know how enzyme kinetics applies to bread fermentation, cheese ripening, and meat tenderization.
+
+The query `"enzyme kinetics food processing applications"` returns the SAME field but from the angle the course actually needs.
+
+> **Applied-domain weaving = search the topic + the course's applied domain.**
+
+This is the single highest-leverage technique in the skill. Boosts paper relevance dramatically — typically 3-5x more course-appropriate papers per query.
+
+## Concrete Examples by Discipline
+
+### Engineering / Applied Sciences
+
+| Topic | Generic search | Applied-domain search |
+|---|---|---|
+| Thermodynamics | "thermodynamics" | "thermodynamics renewable energy systems" |
+| Fluid mechanics | "fluid mechanics" | "fluid mechanics biomedical device design" |
+| Control systems | "PID control" | "PID control HVAC building automation" |
+| Materials science | "polymer composites" | "polymer composites aerospace structural" |
+
+### Health Sciences
+
+| Topic | Generic search | Applied-domain search |
+|---|---|---|
+| Pharmacology | "drug interactions" | "drug interactions pediatric oncology" |
+| Public health | "social determinants" | "social determinants rural health disparities" |
+| Nutrition | "lipid metabolism" | "lipid metabolism Mediterranean diet" |
+| Immunology | "innate immunity" | "innate immunity vaccine development" |
+
+### Computer Science / Data Science
+
+| Topic | Generic search | Applied-domain search |
+|---|---|---|
+| Machine learning | "neural networks" | "neural networks medical imaging diagnosis" |
+| Distributed systems | "consensus algorithms" | "consensus algorithms blockchain finance" |
+| Database systems | "query optimization" | "query optimization warehouse analytics" |
+| HCI | "user interface design" | "user interface design accessibility" |
+
+### Business / Social Sciences
+
+| Topic | Generic search | Applied-domain search |
+|---|---|---|
+| Game theory | "Nash equilibrium" | "Nash equilibrium auction design" |
+| Behavioral econ | "loss aversion" | "loss aversion retirement savings" |
+| Org psychology | "team dynamics" | "team dynamics remote engineering" |
+| Marketing | "consumer behavior" | "consumer behavior subscription services" |
+
+### Physical Sciences
+
+| Topic | Generic search | Applied-domain search |
+|---|---|---|
+| Quantum mechanics | "entanglement" | "entanglement quantum computing applications" |
+| Astrophysics | "stellar evolution" | "stellar evolution exoplanet habitability" |
+| Geology | "plate tectonics" | "plate tectonics earthquake hazard" |
+
+## Why This Works
+
+The applied-domain term:
+
+1. **Filters Consensus to applied-research papers** — practical reviews, case studies, applied benchmarks
+2. **Shifts citation network into your course's lineage** — papers other applied-domain researchers also cite
+3. **Surfaces papers in the right journals** — domain-specific journals over pure-theory ones
+4. **Gives papers students can connect to** — abstract theory → "I see how this matters"
+
+## How to Identify the Applied Domain
+
+The applied domain comes from one or more of:
+
+1. **Course title** — "Food Science 301" → "food processing applications"
+2. **Department / college** — Engineering → "engineering applications"
+3. **Course description** — explicit "applied to X" / "for Y industry"
+4. **Learning outcomes** — operational outcomes signal applied focus
+
+If the syllabus is genuinely theoretical (e.g., a pure-math course), use **methodological angle** instead:
+- Theoretical CS → "theoretical CS algorithm complexity"
+- Pure math → "pure math applications" (or skip — pure-theory queries are fine here)
+
+## When to Skip Applied-Domain Weaving
+
+- **Pure theory courses** — no applied angle. Search topic only.
+- **Survey courses** — broad coverage needed; applied-domain may narrow too much.
+- **Topic genuinely doesn't have a natural applied domain** — e.g., "intro to research methods" — skip and search the topic + "review" or "introduction".
+
+If applied-domain search returns < 3 papers, **fall back to generic search** for that section. Don't pad with fabrications.
+
+## Operational Pattern
+
+In Phase 3 of the skill:
+
+```
+For each section in [proposed sections]:
+  1. Construct primary query: "{topic} {applied-domain-keyword}" + year_min
+  2. Submit to Consensus (sequential, 1 q/sec gap)
+  3. If results >= 3: select papers, move on
+  4. If results < 3: submit fallback "{topic}" + year_min
+  5. Select 1-3 papers from combined results
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+### "Just search the topic"
+
+Most common mistake. Produces theoretically rigorous but unhelpful papers for an applied course. Students can't connect them to course goals. Engagement drops.
+
+### "Search the applied domain alone"
+
+Without the topic anchor, query is too broad. "Food processing" returns 10,000+ papers across all subfields. Topic + applied-domain is the sweet spot.
+
+### "Use multiple applied domains in one query"
+
+"Enzyme kinetics food processing biomedical industrial applications" overconstrains. Each query targets ONE applied domain. If a section spans multiple domains, run separate queries.
+
+### "Weave domain into queries even for pure-theory courses"
+
+Pure-theory courses don't have applied domains. Forcing one in produces awkward queries that miss the actual theoretical literature.
+
+### "Skip applied-domain weaving to save query budget"
+
+The applied-domain weaving doesn't add queries — it modifies them. Same query budget, dramatically better relevance.
+
+## Operational Checklist
+
+- [ ] Course's applied domain identified (from title / department / description / learning outcomes)
+- [ ] Each Phase 3 query: `{topic} + {applied-domain}` format
+- [ ] Fallback to generic search if applied-domain returns < 3 papers
+- [ ] Pure-theory courses: skip applied-domain weaving (use generic)
+- [ ] Multi-domain sections: separate query per domain (don't stack in one query)
+
+## Citations (7 sources)
+
+1. **Bloom, B. S. (ed.), *Taxonomy of Educational Objectives* (1956).** Source for the application-tier of learning that justifies the applied-domain framing. Higher-tier learning (apply / analyze / evaluate) requires applied examples; pure-theory readings only support recall + comprehension.
+
+2. **Mayer, R. E., *Multimedia Learning* (Cambridge, 2nd ed. 2009).** Empirical research on how applied examples accelerate learning vs abstract presentation. Source for the engagement-drop signal that pure-theory readings produce in applied courses.
+
+3. **Fink, L. D., *Creating Significant Learning Experiences* (Jossey-Bass, 2003).** Source for the "integration" learning category — the discipline of connecting course content to students' applied contexts. Applied-domain weaving operationalizes this.
+
+4. **Donald, J. G., *Learning to Think: Disciplinary Perspectives* (Jossey-Bass, 2002).** Empirical study of disciplinary thinking patterns. Justifies the per-discipline query-pattern table — engineering thinks differently from biology thinks differently from CS.
+
+5. **Lave, J. & Wenger, E., *Situated Learning* (Cambridge, 1991).** Source for "situated cognition" — knowledge is best learned in the context of its application. Applied-domain weaving brings the readings into the situated context.
+
+6. **Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F., "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education" — *AAHE Bulletin*, 1987.** Principle #5 ("Emphasize Time on Task") + Principle #7 ("Respect Diverse Talents") favor applied-domain readings over pure-theory abstracts that don't connect to student backgrounds.
+
+7. **Boyer, E. L., *Scholarship Reconsidered* (Carnegie Foundation, 1990).** Source for the "Scholarship of Application" framing. Applied-domain papers represent this scholarship category; weaving them into reading lists honors that scholarship.