gh-lyndonkl-claude/skills/abstraction-concrete-examples/resources/template.md

Quick-Start Template

Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

Abstraction Ladder Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Gather inputs (topic, purpose, audience, levels, direction)
- [ ] Step 2: Choose starting point and build levels
- [ ] Step 3: Add connections and transitions
- [ ] Step 4: Test with edge cases
- [ ] Step 5: Validate quality checklist

Step 1: Gather inputs

Define topic (what concept/system/problem?), purpose (communication/design/validation?), audience (who will use this?), levels (3-5, default 4), direction (top-down/bottom-up/middle-out), and focus areas (edge cases/communication/implementation).

Step 2: Choose starting point and build levels

Use Common Starting Points to select direction. Top-down for teaching/design, bottom-up for analysis/patterns, middle-out for bridging gaps. Build each level ensuring distinctness and logical flow.

Step 3: Add connections and transitions

Explain how levels flow together as coherent whole. Each level should logically derive from previous level. See Template Structure for format.

Step 4: Test with edge cases

Identify 2-3 boundary scenarios that test principles. For each: describe scenario, state what abstract principle suggests, note what actually happens, assess alignment (matches/conflicts/requires nuance).

Step 5: Validate quality checklist

Use Quality Checklist to verify: levels are distinct, concrete level has specifics, abstract level is universal, edge cases are meaningful, assumptions stated, serves stated purpose.

Template Structure

Copy this structure to create your abstraction ladder:

# Abstraction Ladder: [Your Topic]

## Overview
**Topic**: [What you're exploring]
**Purpose**: [Why you're building this ladder]
**Audience**: [Who will use this]

## Abstraction Levels

### Level 1 (Most Abstract): [Give it a label]
[Universal principle or highest-level concept]

Why this matters: [Explain the significance]

### Level 2: [Label]
[Framework, category, or general approach]

Connection to L1: [How does this derive from Level 1?]

### Level 3: [Label]
[Specific method or implementation approach]

Connection to L2: [How does this derive from Level 2?]

### Level 4 (Most Concrete): [Label]
[Exact implementation with specific details]

Connection to L3: [How does this derive from Level 3?]

*Add Level 5 if you need more granularity*

## Connections & Transitions

[Explain how the levels flow together as a coherent whole]

**Key insight**: [What becomes clear when you see all levels together?]

## Edge Cases & Boundary Testing

### Edge Case 1: [Name]
- **Scenario**: [Concrete situation]
- **Abstract principle**: [What L1/L2 suggests should happen]
- **Reality**: [What actually happens]
- **Alignment**: [✓ matches / ✗ conflicts / ~ requires nuance]

### Edge Case 2: [Name]
[Same structure]

## Applications

This ladder is useful for:
- [Use case 1]
- [Use case 2]
- [Use case 3]

## Gaps & Assumptions

**Assumptions:**
- [What are we taking for granted?]
- [What context is this specific to?]

**Gaps:**
- [What's not covered?]
- [What questions remain?]

**What would change if:**
- [Different scale? Different domain? Different constraints?]

Common Starting Points

Start Top-Down (Abstract → Concrete)

Good for: Teaching, designing from principles, communication to varied audiences

Prompt to yourself:

1. "What's the most universal statement I can make about this topic?"
2. "How would this principle manifest in practice?"
3. "What framework implements this principle?"
4. "What's a concrete example?"
5. "What are the exact, measurable details?"

Example:

• L1: "Communication should be clear"
• L2: "Use plain language and structure"
• L3: "Organize documents with headings, bullets, short paragraphs"
• L4: "This document uses H2 headings every 3-4 paragraphs, bullet lists for steps"

Start Bottom-Up (Concrete → Abstract)

Good for: Analyzing existing work, generalizing patterns, root cause analysis

Prompt to yourself:

1. "What specific thing am I looking at?"
2. "What pattern does this exemplify?"
3. "What general approach does that pattern reflect?"
4. "What framework supports that approach?"
5. "What universal principle underlies this?"

Example:

• L5: "Button has onClick={handleSubmit} and disabled={!isValid}"
• L4: "Form button is disabled until validation passes"
• L3: "Prevent invalid form submission through UI controls"
• L2: "Use defensive programming and client-side validation"
• L1: "Systems should prevent errors, not just catch them"

Start Middle-Out (Familiar → Both Directions)

Good for: Building shared understanding, bridging expertise gaps

Prompt to yourself:

1. "What's something everyone already understands?"
2. Go up: "What principle does this exemplify?"
3. Go down: "How exactly is this implemented?"
4. Continue in both directions

Example (start at L3):

• L1: ↑ "Products should be accessible to all"
• L2: ↑ "Follow WCAG guidelines"
• L3: "Add alt text to images" ← Start here
• L4: ↓ <img src="logo.png" alt="Company name logo">
• L5: ↓ Screen reader reads: "Company name logo, image"

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, check:

• Each level is clearly distinct from adjacent levels
• I can explain the transition between any two adjacent levels
• Most concrete level has specific, measurable details
• Most abstract level is broadly applicable beyond this context
• Edge cases test the boundaries meaningfully
• Assumptions are stated explicitly
• The ladder serves the stated purpose
• Someone unfamiliar with the topic could follow the logic

Guardrails

Do:

• State what you don't know or aren't sure about
• Include edge cases that challenge the principles
• Make concrete levels truly concrete (numbers, specifics)
• Make abstract levels truly universal (apply to other domains)

Don't:

• Use vague language like "good," "better," "appropriate" without defining
• Make huge jumps between levels (missing middle)
• Let different levels address different aspects of the topic
• Assume expertise your audience doesn't have

Next Steps After Creating Ladder

For communication:

• Share L1-L2 with executives
• Share L2-L3 with managers
• Share L3-L5 with implementers

For design:

• Use L1-L2 to guide decisions
• Use L3-L4 to specify requirements
• Use L5 for implementation

For validation:

• Test if L5 reality matches L1 principles
• Find gaps between levels
• Identify where principles break down

For documentation:

• Use as table of contents (each level = section depth)
• Create expandable sections (click for more detail)
• Link levels to relevant resources

Examples to Study

See resources/examples/ for complete examples:

• api-design.md - Technical example (API design principles)
• hiring-process.md - Process example (hiring practices)

Each example shows different techniques and applications.