clarify-metamedium

name

clarify:metamedium

description

This skill should be used when the user is building, planning, or strategizing and the key question is whether to optimize content (what) or change form (how/medium). Trigger on "내용 vs 형식", "content vs form", "metamedium", "형식을 바꿔볼까", "새로운 포맷", "관점 전환", "perspective shift", "다른 방법 없을까", "같은 방식이 안 먹혀", "diminishing returns". Applies Alan Kay's metamedium concept to surface form-level alternatives. For requirement clarification use vague; for strategy blind spots use unknown.

Metamedium: Content vs Form Lens

Distinguish content (what is being said/built) from form (the medium/structure it's delivered through) to surface whether the real leverage is in optimizing content or inventing a new form. Based on Alan Kay's metamedium concept.

"A change of perspective is worth 80 IQ points." — Alan Kay

Core Concept

Most people only change content — what they say, write, or build. The real leverage comes from changing form — the medium, format, or structure itself.

	Content (what)	Form (how/medium)
Example	Writing a LinkedIn post	Building a tool that generates posts from client work
Example	Writing unit tests manually	Building a test generator from type signatures
Example	Giving a workshop	Inventing a format where attendees co-create artifacts
Leverage	Linear — each piece is one output	Exponential — each new form enables infinite content

When to Use

• Planning a project and unsure whether to optimize the output or the process
• Stuck optimizing content with diminishing returns
• Building something and want to check if form-level change would yield more leverage
• Evaluating whether "more of the same" or "something structurally different" is the right move

For requirement clarification, use the vague skill. For strategy blind spot analysis, use the unknown skill.

Protocol

ALWAYS use the AskUserQuestion tool for the fork question in Phase 2 — never ask content/form choices in plain text.

Phase 1: Identify and Label

Read the user's current work, plan, or task. Classify each component as content or form:

[CONTENT] Writing a blog post about AI consulting
[FORM]    Building a pipeline that turns consulting retros into blog posts
[CONTENT] Deploying a new API endpoint
[FORM]    Building a codegen that auto-generates endpoints from schemas
[CONTENT] Fixing a flaky test
[FORM]    Building a test infrastructure that prevents flaky tests by design

Present the labeling to the user as a brief diagnosis.

Phase 2: Surface the Fork

Use AskUserQuestion to present the content/form choice:

questions:
  - question: "This is currently [CONTENT/FORM]-level work. Where should effort go?"
    header: "Level"
    options:
      - label: "Proceed with content"
        description: "Optimize within the current form — faster, lower risk"
      - label: "Explore form change"
        description: "What if the medium/structure itself changed? Higher leverage"
      - label: "Content now, note form"
        description: "Do the content work, but flag the form opportunity for later"
    multiSelect: false

Phase 3: Branch

If "Proceed with content": Acknowledge and proceed. Include a Form Opportunity note in the output for future reference.

If "Explore form change": Generate 2-3 form alternatives. For each alternative:

• What the new form looks like concretely
• What new properties it would have (automatic, repeatable, scalable, composable)
• Minimum viable version to test the form

If "Content now, note form": Proceed with content work. Append the form opportunity to the output.

Output

Append to any deliverable or present standalone:

## Content/Form Analysis

**Current work**: [description]
**Classification**: [CONTENT / FORM]

### Form Opportunity
| | Detail |
|---|--------|
| **Alternative form** | [what it would look like] |
| **New properties** | [what it enables that current form doesn't] |
| **Minimum test** | [smallest version to validate] |
| **Status** | [exploring / noted for later / not applicable] |

The Metamedium Question

When stuck or when optimizing yields diminishing returns:

"What new form/medium could make this problem disappear?"

Examples:

• Stuck writing more posts? → A format that turns client work into posts automatically
• Test coverage plateauing? → A tool that generates tests from type signatures
• Onboarding too slow? → A self-guided format where the codebase teaches itself

Tetris Test

Change the blocks. Then you realize the original blocks were mathematically calculated.

To truly understand a form, try to change it. The constraints discovered ARE the form's intelligence. Perspective shifts happen not by thinking harder, but by touching the form itself.

Anti-Patterns

• Treating all work as content optimization when form change is available
• Building "better content" when the form is the bottleneck
• Assuming the current medium/format is fixed and only content can vary
• Confusing incremental content improvement with form invention

Rules

1. Always label: Tag work as content or form
2. Content is fine: Not everything needs form change — but always note the option
3. Form yields power: New form = new medium = exponential leverage
4. Code is metamedium: The ability to code means the ability to change form
5. Touch to understand: Change the form to discover why it was designed that way

Additional Resources

For Alan Kay's original ideas and source quotes, see references/alan-kay-quotes.md.