cokit-cli 1.0.9 → 1.2.2

package/skills/{ck-problem-solving → problem-solving}/references/collision-zone-thinking.md

@@ -1,79 +1,79 @@
-# Collision-Zone Thinking
-
-Force unrelated concepts together to discover emergent properties. "What if we treated X like Y?"
-
-## Core Principle
-
-Revolutionary insights from deliberate metaphor-mixing. Treat X like Y and see what emerges.
-
-## When to Use
-
-| Symptom | Action |
-|---------|--------|
-| Stuck in conventional thinking | Force wild domain collision |
-| Solutions feel incremental | Need breakthrough, not optimization |
-| "Tried everything in this domain" | Import concepts from elsewhere |
-| Need innovation, not iteration | Deliberately mix unrelated ideas |
-
-## Quick Reference Collisions
-
-| Treat This | Like This | Discovers |
-|------------|-----------|-----------|
-| Code organization | DNA/genetics | Mutation testing, evolutionary algorithms |
-| Service architecture | Lego bricks | Composable microservices, plug-and-play |
-| Data management | Water flow | Streaming, data lakes, flow-based systems |
-| Request handling | Postal mail | Message queues, async processing |
-| Error handling | Circuit breakers | Fault isolation, graceful degradation |
-
-## Process
-
-1. **Pick two unrelated concepts** from different domains
-2. **Force combination** - "What if we treated [A] like [B]?"
-3. **Explore emergent properties** - What new capabilities appear?
-4. **Test boundaries** - Where does the metaphor break?
-5. **Extract insight** - What did we learn?
-
-## Detailed Example
-
-**Problem:** Complex distributed system with cascading failures
-
-**Collision:** "What if we treated services like electrical circuits?"
-
-**Emergent properties:**
-- Circuit breakers (disconnect on overload)
-- Fuses (one-time failure protection)
-- Ground faults (error isolation)
-- Load balancing (current distribution)
-- Voltage regulation (rate limiting)
-
-**Where it works:** Preventing cascade failures, fault isolation
-
-**Where it breaks:** Circuits don't have retry logic, healing mechanisms
-
-**Insight gained:** Failure isolation patterns from electrical engineering
-
-## Best Source Domains
-
-Rich domains for concept mining:
-- **Physics** - Forces, thermodynamics, relativity
-- **Biology** - Evolution, ecosystems, immune systems
-- **Economics** - Markets, incentives, game theory
-- **Psychology** - Cognition, behavior, motivation
-- **Architecture** - Structure, flow, space utilization
-
-## Red Flags
-
-You need collision-zone thinking when:
-- "I've tried everything in this domain"
-- Solutions feel incremental, not breakthrough
-- Stuck in conventional thinking
-- Need innovation, not optimization
-- "Standard approach isn't working"
-
-## Remember
-
-- Wild combinations often yield best insights
-- Test metaphor boundaries rigorously
-- Document even failed collisions (they teach)
-- Breakthrough > incremental improvement
-- Question: "What would [domain expert] do?"
+# Collision-Zone Thinking
+
+Force unrelated concepts together to discover emergent properties. "What if we treated X like Y?"
+
+## Core Principle
+
+Revolutionary insights from deliberate metaphor-mixing. Treat X like Y and see what emerges.
+
+## When to Use
+
+| Symptom | Action |
+|---------|--------|
+| Stuck in conventional thinking | Force wild domain collision |
+| Solutions feel incremental | Need breakthrough, not optimization |
+| "Tried everything in this domain" | Import concepts from elsewhere |
+| Need innovation, not iteration | Deliberately mix unrelated ideas |
+
+## Quick Reference Collisions
+
+| Treat This | Like This | Discovers |
+|------------|-----------|-----------|
+| Code organization | DNA/genetics | Mutation testing, evolutionary algorithms |
+| Service architecture | Lego bricks | Composable microservices, plug-and-play |
+| Data management | Water flow | Streaming, data lakes, flow-based systems |
+| Request handling | Postal mail | Message queues, async processing |
+| Error handling | Circuit breakers | Fault isolation, graceful degradation |
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Pick two unrelated concepts** from different domains
+2. **Force combination** - "What if we treated [A] like [B]?"
+3. **Explore emergent properties** - What new capabilities appear?
+4. **Test boundaries** - Where does the metaphor break?
+5. **Extract insight** - What did we learn?
+
+## Detailed Example
+
+**Problem:** Complex distributed system with cascading failures
+
+**Collision:** "What if we treated services like electrical circuits?"
+
+**Emergent properties:**
+- Circuit breakers (disconnect on overload)
+- Fuses (one-time failure protection)
+- Ground faults (error isolation)
+- Load balancing (current distribution)
+- Voltage regulation (rate limiting)
+
+**Where it works:** Preventing cascade failures, fault isolation
+
+**Where it breaks:** Circuits don't have retry logic, healing mechanisms
+
+**Insight gained:** Failure isolation patterns from electrical engineering
+
+## Best Source Domains
+
+Rich domains for concept mining:
+- **Physics** - Forces, thermodynamics, relativity
+- **Biology** - Evolution, ecosystems, immune systems
+- **Economics** - Markets, incentives, game theory
+- **Psychology** - Cognition, behavior, motivation
+- **Architecture** - Structure, flow, space utilization
+
+## Red Flags
+
+You need collision-zone thinking when:
+- "I've tried everything in this domain"
+- Solutions feel incremental, not breakthrough
+- Stuck in conventional thinking
+- Need innovation, not optimization
+- "Standard approach isn't working"
+
+## Remember
+
+- Wild combinations often yield best insights
+- Test metaphor boundaries rigorously
+- Document even failed collisions (they teach)
+- Breakthrough > incremental improvement
+- Question: "What would [domain expert] do?"

package/{templates/repo/.github/skills/ck-problem-solving → skills/problem-solving}/references/inversion-exercise.md

@@ -1,91 +1,91 @@
-# Inversion Exercise
-
-Flip core assumptions to reveal hidden constraints and alternative approaches. "What if the opposite were true?"
-
-## Core Principle
-
-**Inversion exposes hidden assumptions.** Sometimes the opposite reveals the truth.
-
-## When to Use
-
-| Symptom | Action |
-|---------|--------|
-| "There's only one way" | Flip the assumption |
-| Solution feels forced | Invert the constraints |
-| Can't articulate why necessary | Question the "must" |
-| "This is just how it's done" | Try the opposite |
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Normal Assumption | Inverted | What It Reveals |
-|-------------------|----------|-----------------|
-| Cache to reduce latency | Add latency to enable caching | Debouncing patterns |
-| Pull data when needed | Push data before needed | Prefetching, eager loading |
-| Handle errors when occur | Make errors impossible | Type systems, contracts |
-| Build features users want | Remove features users don't need | Simplicity >> addition |
-| Optimize for common case | Optimize for worst case | Resilience patterns |
-
-## Process
-
-1. **List core assumptions** - What "must" be true?
-2. **Invert each systematically** - "What if opposite were true?"
-3. **Explore implications** - What would we do differently?
-4. **Find valid inversions** - Which actually work somewhere?
-5. **Document insights** - What did we learn?
-
-## Detailed Example
-
-**Problem:** Users complain app is slow
-
-**Normal approach:** Make everything faster
-- Add caching
-- Optimize queries
-- Use CDN
-- Reduce bundle size
-
-**Inverted approach:** Make things intentionally slower in some places
-- **Debounce search** - Add latency → enable better results (wait for full query)
-- **Rate limit requests** - Add friction → prevent abuse, improve for others
-- **Lazy load content** - Delay loading → reduce initial load time
-- **Progressive rendering** - Show slower → perceived performance
-
-**Insight:** Strategic slowness can improve UX
-
-## Valid vs Invalid Inversions
-
-**Valid inversion example:**
-- Normal: "Store data in database"
-- Inverted: "Derive data on-demand instead of storing"
-- Valid when: Computation cheaper than storage, data changes frequently
-
-**Invalid inversion example:**
-- Normal: "Validate user input"
-- Inverted: "Trust all user input"
-- Invalid because: Security vulnerability, not context-dependent
-
-**Test validity:** Does the inversion work in ANY context? If yes, it's valid somewhere.
-
-## Common Inversions
-
-- **Eager → Lazy** (or vice versa)
-- **Push → Pull** (or vice versa)
-- **Store → Compute** (or vice versa)
-- **Optimize → Simplify** (or vice versa)
-- **Add features → Remove features** (or vice versa)
-
-## Red Flags
-
-You need inversion exercise when:
-- "There's only one way to do this"
-- Forcing solution that feels wrong
-- Can't articulate why approach is necessary
-- "This is just how it's done"
-- Stuck on unquestioned assumptions
-
-## Remember
-
-- Not all inversions work (test boundaries)
-- Valid inversions reveal context-dependence
-- Sometimes opposite is the answer
-- Question "must be" statements
-- Document both successful and failed inversions
+# Inversion Exercise
+
+Flip core assumptions to reveal hidden constraints and alternative approaches. "What if the opposite were true?"
+
+## Core Principle
+
+**Inversion exposes hidden assumptions.** Sometimes the opposite reveals the truth.
+
+## When to Use
+
+| Symptom | Action |
+|---------|--------|
+| "There's only one way" | Flip the assumption |
+| Solution feels forced | Invert the constraints |
+| Can't articulate why necessary | Question the "must" |
+| "This is just how it's done" | Try the opposite |
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Normal Assumption | Inverted | What It Reveals |
+|-------------------|----------|-----------------|
+| Cache to reduce latency | Add latency to enable caching | Debouncing patterns |
+| Pull data when needed | Push data before needed | Prefetching, eager loading |
+| Handle errors when occur | Make errors impossible | Type systems, contracts |
+| Build features users want | Remove features users don't need | Simplicity >> addition |
+| Optimize for common case | Optimize for worst case | Resilience patterns |
+
+## Process
+
+1. **List core assumptions** - What "must" be true?
+2. **Invert each systematically** - "What if opposite were true?"
+3. **Explore implications** - What would we do differently?
+4. **Find valid inversions** - Which actually work somewhere?
+5. **Document insights** - What did we learn?
+
+## Detailed Example
+
+**Problem:** Users complain app is slow
+
+**Normal approach:** Make everything faster
+- Add caching
+- Optimize queries
+- Use CDN
+- Reduce bundle size
+
+**Inverted approach:** Make things intentionally slower in some places
+- **Debounce search** - Add latency → enable better results (wait for full query)
+- **Rate limit requests** - Add friction → prevent abuse, improve for others
+- **Lazy load content** - Delay loading → reduce initial load time
+- **Progressive rendering** - Show slower → perceived performance
+
+**Insight:** Strategic slowness can improve UX
+
+## Valid vs Invalid Inversions
+
+**Valid inversion example:**
+- Normal: "Store data in database"
+- Inverted: "Derive data on-demand instead of storing"
+- Valid when: Computation cheaper than storage, data changes frequently
+
+**Invalid inversion example:**
+- Normal: "Validate user input"
+- Inverted: "Trust all user input"
+- Invalid because: Security vulnerability, not context-dependent
+
+**Test validity:** Does the inversion work in ANY context? If yes, it's valid somewhere.
+
+## Common Inversions
+
+- **Eager → Lazy** (or vice versa)
+- **Push → Pull** (or vice versa)
+- **Store → Compute** (or vice versa)
+- **Optimize → Simplify** (or vice versa)
+- **Add features → Remove features** (or vice versa)
+
+## Red Flags
+
+You need inversion exercise when:
+- "There's only one way to do this"
+- Forcing solution that feels wrong
+- Can't articulate why approach is necessary
+- "This is just how it's done"
+- Stuck on unquestioned assumptions
+
+## Remember
+
+- Not all inversions work (test boundaries)
+- Valid inversions reveal context-dependence
+- Sometimes opposite is the answer
+- Question "must be" statements
+- Document both successful and failed inversions

package/skills/{ck-problem-solving → problem-solving}/references/meta-pattern-recognition.md

@@ -1,87 +1,87 @@
-# Meta-Pattern Recognition
-
-Spot patterns appearing in 3+ domains to find universal principles.
-
-## Core Principle
-
-**Find patterns in how patterns emerge.** When the same pattern appears in 3+ domains, it's likely a universal principle worth extracting.
-
-## When to Use
-
-| Symptom | Action |
-|---------|--------|
-| Same issue in different places | Extract the abstract form |
-| Déjà vu in problem-solving | Find the universal pattern |
-| Reinventing wheels across domains | Identify the meta-pattern |
-| "Haven't we done this before?" | Yes, find and reuse it |
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Pattern Appears In | Abstract Form | Where Else? |
-|-------------------|---------------|-------------|
-| CPU/DB/HTTP/DNS caching | Store frequently-accessed data closer | LLM prompt caching, CDN |
-| Layering (network/storage/compute) | Separate concerns into abstraction levels | Architecture, org structure |
-| Queuing (message/task/request) | Decouple producer from consumer with buffer | Event systems, async |
-| Pooling (connection/thread/object) | Reuse expensive resources | Memory mgmt, governance |
-
-## Process
-
-1. **Spot repetition** - See same shape in 3+ places
-2. **Extract abstract form** - Describe independent of any domain
-3. **Identify variations** - How does it adapt per domain?
-4. **Check applicability** - Where else might this help?
-5. **Document pattern** - Make it reusable
-
-## Detailed Example
-
-**Pattern spotted:** Rate limiting appears in:
-- API throttling (requests per minute)
-- Traffic shaping (packets per second)
-- Circuit breakers (failures per window)
-- Admission control (concurrent connections)
-
-**Abstract form:** Bound resource consumption to prevent exhaustion
-
-**Variation points:**
-- What resource (requests, packets, failures, connections)
-- What limit (per time window, concurrent, cumulative)
-- What happens when exceeded (reject, queue, degrade)
-
-**New application:** LLM token budgets
-- Same pattern: prevent context window exhaustion
-- Resource: tokens
-- Limit: context window size
-- Action: truncate or reject
-
-## 3+ Domain Rule
-
-**Why 3 domains?**
-- 1 occurrence = coincidence
-- 2 occurrences = possible pattern
-- 3+ occurrences = likely universal
-
-**Domain independence test:**
-Can you describe the pattern without mentioning specific domains?
-
-## Red Flags
-
-Signs you're missing meta-patterns:
-- "This problem is unique" (probably not)
-- Multiple teams solving "different" problems identically
-- Reinventing wheels across domains
-- "Haven't we done something like this?" (yes, find it)
-
-## Benefits of Meta-Patterns
-
-- **Battle-tested** - Proven across multiple domains
-- **Reusable** - Apply to new situations
-- **Universal** - Domain-independent solutions
-- **Documented** - Known variations and trade-offs
-
-## Remember
-
-- 3+ domains = likely universal
-- Abstract form reveals new applications
-- Variations show adaptation points
-- Universal patterns save time
-- Document for future reuse
+# Meta-Pattern Recognition
+
+Spot patterns appearing in 3+ domains to find universal principles.
+
+## Core Principle
+
+**Find patterns in how patterns emerge.** When the same pattern appears in 3+ domains, it's likely a universal principle worth extracting.
+
+## When to Use
+
+| Symptom | Action |
+|---------|--------|
+| Same issue in different places | Extract the abstract form |
+| Déjà vu in problem-solving | Find the universal pattern |
+| Reinventing wheels across domains | Identify the meta-pattern |
+| "Haven't we done this before?" | Yes, find and reuse it |
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Pattern Appears In | Abstract Form | Where Else? |
+|-------------------|---------------|-------------|
+| CPU/DB/HTTP/DNS caching | Store frequently-accessed data closer | LLM prompt caching, CDN |
+| Layering (network/storage/compute) | Separate concerns into abstraction levels | Architecture, org structure |
+| Queuing (message/task/request) | Decouple producer from consumer with buffer | Event systems, async |
+| Pooling (connection/thread/object) | Reuse expensive resources | Memory mgmt, governance |
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Spot repetition** - See same shape in 3+ places
+2. **Extract abstract form** - Describe independent of any domain
+3. **Identify variations** - How does it adapt per domain?
+4. **Check applicability** - Where else might this help?
+5. **Document pattern** - Make it reusable
+
+## Detailed Example
+
+**Pattern spotted:** Rate limiting appears in:
+- API throttling (requests per minute)
+- Traffic shaping (packets per second)
+- Circuit breakers (failures per window)
+- Admission control (concurrent connections)
+
+**Abstract form:** Bound resource consumption to prevent exhaustion
+
+**Variation points:**
+- What resource (requests, packets, failures, connections)
+- What limit (per time window, concurrent, cumulative)
+- What happens when exceeded (reject, queue, degrade)
+
+**New application:** LLM token budgets
+- Same pattern: prevent context window exhaustion
+- Resource: tokens
+- Limit: context window size
+- Action: truncate or reject
+
+## 3+ Domain Rule
+
+**Why 3 domains?**
+- 1 occurrence = coincidence
+- 2 occurrences = possible pattern
+- 3+ occurrences = likely universal
+
+**Domain independence test:**
+Can you describe the pattern without mentioning specific domains?
+
+## Red Flags
+
+Signs you're missing meta-patterns:
+- "This problem is unique" (probably not)
+- Multiple teams solving "different" problems identically
+- Reinventing wheels across domains
+- "Haven't we done something like this?" (yes, find it)
+
+## Benefits of Meta-Patterns
+
+- **Battle-tested** - Proven across multiple domains
+- **Reusable** - Apply to new situations
+- **Universal** - Domain-independent solutions
+- **Documented** - Known variations and trade-offs
+
+## Remember
+
+- 3+ domains = likely universal
+- Abstract form reveals new applications
+- Variations show adaptation points
+- Universal patterns save time
+- Document for future reuse