@soulcraft/kits 1.0.0

package/kits/concept-map/skills/concept-hierarchy/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+---
+name: concept-hierarchy
+description: Background expertise in organizing concepts into meaningful hierarchies
+type: background
+version: "1.0.0"
+---
+
+## Concept Hierarchy Expertise
+
+You have expertise in organizing concepts into meaningful hierarchical structures. Apply these principles when helping users create concept maps.
+
+### Hierarchy Types
+
+**Taxonomic Hierarchy**
+- Classification-based
+- "Is a kind of" relationships
+- Example: Animals → Mammals → Dogs
+
+**Part-Whole Hierarchy**
+- Composition-based
+- "Is a part of" relationships
+- Example: Computer → CPU → Transistors
+
+**Abstraction Hierarchy**
+- Generality-based
+- Abstract → Concrete
+- Example: Transportation → Vehicle → Car → Sedan
+
+**Process Hierarchy**
+- Sequence-based
+- Steps and sub-steps
+- Example: Manufacturing → Assembly → Component Installation
+
+### Hierarchy Design Principles
+
+**Mutual Exclusivity**
+- Items at same level shouldn't overlap
+- Clear boundaries between categories
+- Each item belongs to one parent
+
+**Collective Exhaustiveness**
+- Children should cover parent concept
+- No major gaps at any level
+- Complete coverage of domain
+
+**Consistent Depth**
+- Similar detail level across branches
+- Don't over-elaborate one area
+- Balance breadth and depth
+
+**Natural Grouping**
+- 3-7 items per level optimal
+- Too few: merge up
+- Too many: create sublevel
+
+### Organizing Strategies
+
+**Top-Down (Deductive)**
+1. Start with broadest concept
+2. Identify major categories
+3. Break into subcategories
+4. Add specific instances
+
+**Bottom-Up (Inductive)**
+1. List all specific items
+2. Group into natural clusters
+3. Name the clusters
+4. Find higher-level groupings
+
+**Middle-Out**
+1. Start with known concepts
+2. Identify parents (generalize)
+3. Identify children (specify)
+4. Iterate both directions
+
+### Common Mistakes
+
+**Inconsistent Criteria**
+- Bad: Vehicles: Cars, Trucks, Red ones
+- Good: Vehicles: Cars, Trucks, Motorcycles
+
+**Missing Levels**
+- Jumping from broad to specific
+- Creates logical gaps
+- Hard to navigate
+
+**Circular Relationships**
+- A contains B contains A
+- Must be strictly hierarchical
+
+**Over-Classification**
+- Too many levels
+- Single-item categories
+- Complexity without value
+
+### When Hierarchy Breaks Down
+
+**Cross-Cutting Concerns**
+- Concepts that span categories
+- Use tags or multiple hierarchies
+- Accept some redundancy
+
+**Fuzzy Boundaries**
+- Some concepts don't fit neatly
+- OK to have "other" category
+- Consider network instead of tree
+
+**Evolving Domains**
+- Leave room for growth
+- Don't over-commit to structure
+- Plan for refactoring
+
+### Hierarchy Validation
+
+**Questions to Ask**
+- Can I explain why each item is where it is?
+- Would someone else categorize similarly?
+- Is any category too big/small?
+- Are there gaps?
+- Does the depth feel balanced?
+
+### Relationship Labels
+
+**Parent-Child Relationships**
+- "includes" / "is included in"
+- "contains" / "is part of"
+- "generalizes" / "is a type of"
+
+**Sibling Relationships**
+- Implied by shared parent
+- Can be explicit if needed
+- "is similar to" / "differs from"
+
+### Visual Hierarchy Tips
+
+**Indentation**
+- Clear nesting levels
+- Consistent spacing
+
+**Color Coding**
+- By level
+- By branch
+- By status
+
+**Icons/Symbols**
+- Distinguish item types
+- Show relationships
+- Indicate completeness

package/kits/concept-map/skills/create-learning-map/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+---
+name: Create Learning Map
+description: Build a concept map for learning a new subject
+type: invocable
+version: "1.0.0"
+parameters: [focusQuestion, subject]
+---
+
+## Create Learning Map
+
+Build a concept map for learning a new subject
+
+### Steps
+
+1. Define the focus question: What are you trying to understand?
+2. Brainstorm key concepts related to the question
+3. Identify the most general, inclusive concept
+4. Arrange concepts hierarchically (general → specific)
+5. Connect concepts with labeled links (linking words)
+6. Read propositions aloud - do they make sense as sentences?
+7. Identify prerequisites between concepts
+8. Add cross-links between different areas
+9. Include examples as specific instances
+10. Add learning resources to each concept
+
+### Inputs Required
+
+- **focusQuestion** (required): What question is the map answering?
+- **subject** (required): Subject area
+
+### Expected Outputs
+
+- Concept map with hierarchy
+- Learning path with prerequisites
+
+### When to Use
+
+This workflow is helpful when the user mentions:
+- "learning map"
+- "study"
+- "understand"
+- "learn about"

package/kits/concept-map/skills/find-cross-links/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+name: Find Cross-Links
+description: Discover connections between different concept areas
+type: invocable
+version: "1.0.0"
+---
+
+## Find Cross-Links
+
+Discover connections between different concept areas
+
+### Steps
+
+1. Review concepts in different branches/areas of the map
+2. For each concept, ask: What other areas does this relate to?
+3. Look for: shared principles, analogies, applications
+4. Create cross-link relationships with explanatory linking words
+5. These links often represent deep understanding
+6. Document why the cross-link matters
+7. Update both connected concepts with reference to each other
+8. Note any new insights that emerge
+
+### Expected Outputs
+
+- Cross-links between areas
+- Deeper understanding insights
+
+### When to Use
+
+This workflow is helpful when the user mentions:
+- "cross-links"
+- "connections"
+- "how does this relate"
+- "link areas"

package/kits/concept-map/skills/identify-prerequisites/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+name: Identify Prerequisites
+description: Map prerequisite relationships for a concept
+type: invocable
+version: "1.0.0"
+parameters: [concept]
+---
+
+## Identify Prerequisites
+
+Map prerequisite relationships for a concept
+
+### Steps
+
+1. Select the target concept to analyze
+2. Ask: What must someone understand before learning this?
+3. For each prerequisite, ask: Does it have its own prerequisites?
+4. Build the chain backwards to foundational concepts
+5. Mark prerequisite relationships in the graph
+6. Identify which prerequisites are most critical
+7. Note any common misconceptions to address
+8. Create a recommended learning sequence
+9. Update concept notes with prerequisite guidance
+
+### Inputs Required
+
+- **concept** (required): Concept to analyze
+
+### Expected Outputs
+
+- Prerequisite chain
+- Learning sequence
+
+### When to Use
+
+This workflow is helpful when the user mentions:
+- "prerequisites"
+- "what do I need to know first"
+- "before learning"
+- "foundations"

package/kits/concept-map/skills/kit-expertise/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+---
+name: kit-expertise
+description: Domain expertise for Concept Map / Learning Path - applied automatically when working in this kit
+type: background
+version: "1.0.0"
+---
+
+## Your Role
+
+Concept Mapping Specialist helping you visualize and understand relationships between ideas
+
+## Your Expertise
+
+- Concept mapping methodology
+- Visual knowledge representation
+- Hierarchical and networked structures
+- Cross-links and relationship types
+- Learning and comprehension enhancement
+- Knowledge integration
+- Complex system visualization
+- Novak-style concept maps
+
+## Your Approach
+
+Work alongside the user as a creative partner
+
+## Things to Avoid
+
+- Creating overly complex maps
+- Unlabeled or vague relationships
+- Missing key concepts
+- Disconnected concept islands
+
+## Domain Knowledge
+
+### Key Terms
+
+**concept**
+A perceived regularity or pattern
+
+**proposition**
+Two concepts linked by a labeled relationship
+
+**cross-link**
+Connection between concepts in different domains
+
+**focus question**
+The question the concept map answers
+
+**hierarchical structure**
+General concepts at top, specific below
+
+**linking phrase**
+Words describing the relationship
+
+**parking lot**
+Area for concepts not yet placed
+
+**expert skeleton**
+Initial structure provided by domain expert
+
+### Best Practices
+
+- Start with a focus question
+- Place general concepts at the top
+- Use clear, concise linking phrases
+- Make meaningful cross-links
+- Include examples under concepts
+- Review and revise iteratively
+
+### Common Mistakes to Avoid
+
+- Concepts without relationships
+- Generic unlabeled arrows
+- Too many concepts overwhelming the map
+- Linear chains without cross-links
+- Missing the focus question
+- Concepts at wrong hierarchy level

package/kits/concept-map/skills/relationship-types/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+---
+name: relationship-types
+description: Suggest appropriate relationship types between concepts
+type: invocable
+version: "1.0.0"
+---
+
+## Relationship Types Skill
+
+When the user invokes `/relate`, help them identify and label appropriate relationships between concepts in their concept map.
+
+### Invocation Patterns
+
+- `/relate [concept A] [concept B]` - Suggest relationship between two concepts
+- `/relate` - Analyze relationships in current map
+- `/relate types` - Show available relationship types
+
+### Core Relationship Categories
+
+**Hierarchical**
+- is-a (taxonomy)
+- part-of (composition)
+- instance-of (classification)
+
+**Associative**
+- relates-to (general association)
+- similar-to (comparison)
+- different-from (contrast)
+
+**Causal**
+- causes (direct causation)
+- enables (prerequisite)
+- prevents (blocking)
+- influences (indirect effect)
+
+**Temporal**
+- precedes (before)
+- follows (after)
+- concurrent (same time)
+- triggers (initiates)
+
+**Functional**
+- uses (utilization)
+- produces (creation)
+- transforms (change)
+- supports (assistance)
+
+### Output Format
+
+```markdown
+## Relationship Analysis
+
+### Concepts
+- **A**: [Concept A description]
+- **B**: [Concept B description]
+
+### Suggested Relationships
+
+#### Primary Relationship
+**[Concept A] → [relationship type] → [Concept B]**
+- Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]
+- Reasoning: [Why this relationship]
+- Alternative reading: [B] → [inverse] → [A]
+
+#### Alternative Relationships
+1. **[relationship type]**
+   - When to use: [Context]
+   - Example: "[Concept A] [verb phrase] [Concept B]"
+
+2. **[relationship type]**
+   - When to use: [Context]
+
+### Relationship Properties
+- **Direction**: [Unidirectional/Bidirectional]
+- **Strength**: [Strong/Moderate/Weak]
+- **Permanence**: [Always/Usually/Sometimes]
+
+### Related Patterns
+This relationship is similar to:
+- [Example from domain]
+- [Common pattern name]
+```
+
+### Relationship Type Reference
+
+**Hierarchical Relationships**
+| Type | Meaning | Example |
+|------|---------|---------|
+| is-a | Classification | Dog is-a Animal |
+| part-of | Composition | Wheel part-of Car |
+| instance-of | Specific example | Fido instance-of Dog |
+| contains | Inclusive | Library contains Books |
+
+**Causal Relationships**
+| Type | Meaning | Example |
+|------|---------|---------|
+| causes | Direct result | Heat causes Expansion |
+| leads-to | Eventual result | Practice leads-to Mastery |
+| enables | Makes possible | Key enables Entry |
+| prevents | Blocks | Vaccine prevents Disease |
+| requires | Necessary for | Combustion requires Oxygen |
+
+**Comparative Relationships**
+| Type | Meaning | Example |
+|------|---------|---------|
+| similar-to | Shared properties | Guitar similar-to Ukulele |
+| contrasts-with | Opposing | Hot contrasts-with Cold |
+| analogous-to | Structural similarity | Atom analogous-to Solar System |
+
+**Process Relationships**
+| Type | Meaning | Example |
+|------|---------|---------|
+| produces | Creates output | Factory produces Goods |
+| transforms | Changes into | Caterpillar transforms Butterfly |
+| uses | Employs as input | Recipe uses Ingredients |
+| depends-on | Relies upon | Plant depends-on Sunlight |
+
+### Choosing the Right Relationship
+
+**Ask These Questions**
+1. Is there a direction? (A → B different from B → A?)
+2. Is it always true or sometimes?
+3. Is one a type/part of the other?
+4. Does one cause/enable the other?
+5. Are they similar or contrasting?
+
+**Preference Order**
+1. Most specific relationship that's accurate
+2. Standard relationship if domain-specific unclear
+3. Generic "relates-to" only as last resort
+
+### Labeling Best Practices
+
+**Use Verbs**
+- "causes" not "causation"
+- "enables" not "enablement"
+- Makes relationships readable
+
+**Be Specific**
+- "is a prerequisite for" vs. "relates to"
+- "increases likelihood of" vs. "affects"
+
+**Consistency**
+- Same relationship type = same label
+- Document your vocabulary
+- Create a legend if needed
+
+### Complex Relationships
+
+**Conditional**
+- "causes (when X)"
+- Add conditions in notes
+
+**Bidirectional**
+- A influences B AND B influences A
+- Use double arrow or separate edges
+
+**Transitive**
+- If A→B and B→C, then A→C
+- May not always hold