systemize

name

systemize

description

Converts a singular action, task, or one-off workflow into a modular system component that integrates with existing skills and systems. Analyzes the full inventory of available skills and system components, then runs a structured design dialog to define the component's interfaces, dependencies, data flow, and integration points. If no system exists yet, establishes a self-centric system architecture with the user at the center. Activates when the user says "systemize this", "make this a system", "turn this into a component", "system component", "build a system around this", or when the user has a working action that should become part of a larger interconnected system rather than remaining a standalone skill or one-off workflow. Also activate when the user describes wanting things to "work together", "connect", "feed into each other", or talks about building infrastructure around a recurring process.

Systemize

Elevate a singular action into a system component. Where workflow-lock captures a repeatable process and prompt-to-skill installs it as a trigger, systemize asks the harder question: how does this action fit into a larger system? What feeds it? What consumes its output? What other components does it depend on, and what depends on it?

The goal is never just another skill — it's a node in an interconnected system that compounds value over time.

When to Activate

Manual triggers:

• "Systemize this"
• "Make this a system"
• "Turn this into a component"
• "System component"
• "Build a system around this"
• "This needs to be part of something bigger"
• "How does this connect to everything else?"

Auto-detect triggers:

• User has a working action/workflow that clearly feeds into or depends on other processes they've described
• User mentions wanting things to "work together", "connect", or "be modular"
• User describes an action that overlaps with or duplicates an existing skill
• User is building the same kind of pipeline for the third time
• After a workflow-lock or prompt-to-skill completes, if the locked workflow has obvious system integration potential

Do NOT activate when:

• The action is truly standalone with no integration potential
• The user explicitly wants a one-off ("just do this once")
• The user says "skip the systems stuff" or "keep it simple"

Core Concept: Self-Centric System Design

Every system built through this skill places the user at the center. Systems are not abstract enterprise architectures — they are personal operating systems that serve one person's goals, workflows, and context.

Self-Centric Principles

1. You are the hub. Every system component ultimately serves the user's goals, not organizational abstractions. Data flows toward decisions the user needs to make.

2. Context is the connective tissue. Components share context about the user's projects, preferences, and state. A component that can't access or contribute to the user's context doesn't belong in the system.

3. Progressive automation. Start manual, observe patterns, automate what earns it. Never automate before understanding. The delegation framework (delegate skill) applies at the component level.

4. Composability over completeness. Small components that plug together beat monolithic solutions. A system of 5 focused components that each do one thing well outperforms 1 component that tries to do everything.

5. Systems grow from use, not from planning. Don't design a 20-component system on day one. Systemize what exists and works, then let the system reveal what it needs next.

Phase 0: System Inventory

Before designing anything, understand what already exists. This is automatic and does not require user input.

Scan Available Resources

1. Installed skills: Read the available_skills list from the current session context. For each skill, note:

   • Name and purpose
   • What it produces (output type)
   • What it consumes (input type)
   • Which other skills it chains with

2. Known systems: Search conversation history and memory for previously systemized components. Look for:

   • System registry entries (see Phase 4)
   • References to "system", "pipeline", "workflow chain"
   • Established data flows between components

3. Active projects: Reference user memory for current projects and their tooling (e.g., Summit, DTST, Carrot Hire, Healthspan, Rare Find).

Produce the Inventory Report

Generate a concise inventory (do NOT present this to the user unless asked):

SYSTEM INVENTORY
================
Active systems: [list or "None — this will be the first"]
Installed skills: [count] ([list categories: cli, workflow, planning, etc.])
Active projects: [list from memory]
Potential integration points: [skills/components that relate to the action]

This report informs the design dialog. Claude uses it internally to ask better questions and suggest integration points the user might not see.

Phase 1: Action Analysis

Understand the singular action the user wants to systemize.

Extract the Action DNA

From the conversation, current context, or user description, identify:

1. What it does: The core transformation (input → output)
2. What triggers it: Event, schedule, or manual invocation
3. What it needs: Data, context, credentials, other outputs
4. What it produces: Artifacts, decisions, state changes, notifications
5. How often it runs: Frequency and pattern
6. Who cares about the output: The user, clients, other systems

If any of these are unclear, ask ONE question at a time following the interrogate skill's pattern. Explain why you're asking.

Classify the Component Type

Based on the action DNA, classify it into one of these system component types:

Type	Description	Example
Source	Produces data or events that feed downstream	"Scrape new job postings daily"
Transformer	Takes input, processes it, passes output downstream	"Score candidates against job requirements"
Sink	Consumes system output and produces a final artifact	"Generate weekly client report"
Router	Directs data flow based on conditions	"If high-priority lead, notify immediately; else batch"
State	Maintains system state that other components read/write	"Client relationship tracker"
Orchestrator	Coordinates multiple components in sequence or parallel	"End-to-end candidate pipeline"

A component can have a primary and secondary type (e.g., a Transformer that also maintains State).

Phase 2: System Design Dialog

This is the core of the skill — a structured conversation that designs the component's place in the system. Ask ONE question at a time.

Dialog Sequence

The dialog adapts based on whether a system already exists.

If NO system exists (first systemization):

Step 1: Establish the system purpose. "This is the first component in a new system. Before we design it, I need to understand what this system is ultimately for. What's the big-picture goal that this action serves? Not what this action does — what's the larger outcome you're building toward?"

Step 2: Name the system. "Every system needs an identity. Based on what you've described, I'd suggest calling this the {suggested-name} system. Does that fit, or do you have a better name?"

Step 3: Define the system boundary. "What's in scope for this system, and what's explicitly out? This prevents scope creep as we add components."

Step 4: Design the component. Proceed to the component design questions below.

If a system EXISTS:

Step 1: Confirm the target system. "I see you have the {system-name} system with [N] components. Is this action joining that system, or starting a new one?"

Step 2: Identify the integration point. "Looking at the existing components, this action seems to [connect upstream/downstream/parallel] to {component-name}. It would [consume/produce/share state with] that component. Does that match your mental model?"

Step 3: Design the component. Proceed to the component design questions below.

Component Design Questions

Ask these one at a time, skipping any that are already clear from context.

1. Interface contract — Input: "What does this component need to receive to do its job? This could be data from another component, user input, an external event, or a scheduled trigger."

2. Interface contract — Output: "What does this component produce that other parts of the system (or you) will consume? Be specific about the format and structure."

3. Dependencies: "Does this component need anything from the existing skill set to work?" [Present relevant skills from the inventory as options]

4. Failure mode: "What happens if this component fails or produces bad output? Should the system halt, use a fallback, notify you, or continue with degraded data?"

5. State requirements: "Does this component need to remember anything between runs? If so, where should that state live?"

6. Automation level: "Should this component run fully automatically, with your review before finalizing, or does it always need you in the loop?" [Reference the delegate skill's framework if the answer isn't obvious]

7. Evolution path: "Where do you see this component going? Will it stay roughly this shape, or is this a stepping stone to something more complex?"

Phase 3: Component Specification

After the dialog, produce a formal component specification.

Component Spec Template

# System Component: {component-name}

**System:** {system-name}
**Type:** {Source | Transformer | Sink | Router | State | Orchestrator}
**Version:** 1.0
**Created:** {date}
**Status:** Draft | Active | Deprecated

## Purpose
{One paragraph: what this component does and why it exists in the system.}

## Interface Contract

### Input
| Field | Type | Source | Required | Description |
|-------|------|--------|----------|-------------|
| {field} | {type} | {component or "user"} | {yes/no} | {description} |

### Output
| Field | Type | Consumers | Description |
|-------|------|-----------|-------------|
| {field} | {type} | {component(s) or "user"} | {description} |

## Dependencies

### Skills Required
| Skill | Purpose in This Component |
|-------|--------------------------|
| {skill-name} | {how it's used} |

### System Components Required
| Component | Relationship | Data Exchanged |
|-----------|-------------|----------------|
| {component-name} | {upstream/downstream/peer} | {what flows between them} |

### External Dependencies
| Dependency | Type | Notes |
|------------|------|-------|
| {service/API/tool} | {required/optional} | {access notes} |

## Behavior

### Trigger
{What causes this component to run: schedule, event, manual, upstream signal}

### Process
{Step-by-step logic. Reference skills by name where they handle a step.}

1. {Step 1 — may reference a skill: "Use `{skill-name}` to..."}
2. {Step 2}
3. {Step 3}

### Failure Handling
| Failure Mode | Response | Escalation |
|-------------|----------|-----------|
| {what can go wrong} | {automatic response} | {when to notify user} |

### State Management
{What this component persists between runs, where, and how.
"Stateless" if nothing is persisted.}

## Automation Level
{FULL AUTO | HUMAN REVIEW | HUMAN IN LOOP}
{Brief rationale referencing delegate framework dimensions if applicable.}

## Integration Map
{ASCII or description showing how this component connects to the system.}

Example:
  [Source: Job Scraper] →  → [Sink: Weekly Report]


{Where this component is headed. What would trigger a v2.}


{Technical details: which Claude surface runs this (Code, chat, Dispatch),
file paths, config, environment variables, cron expressions, etc.}

Phase 4: System Registry Update

After the component spec is confirmed, update (or create) the system registry.

System Registry Format

The registry is a single markdown file that tracks all systems and their components. It lives at a location the user specifies (default: conversation memory for lightweight tracking, or a file in a repo for persistent systems).

# System Registry

## {System Name}
**Purpose:** {one sentence}
**Created:** {date}
**Components:** {count}

### Component Index
| # | Component | Type | Status | Depends On | Feeds Into |
|---|-----------|------|--------|-----------|-----------|
| 1 | {name} | {type} | Active | — | #2 |
| 2 | {name} | {type} | Active | #1 | #3 |
| 3 | {name} | {type} | Draft | #2 | User |

### System Diagram
{ASCII representation of the full system data flow}

### Change Log
| Date | Change | Component(s) |
|------|--------|-------------|
| {date} | Initial creation | #1 |
| {date} | Added {component} | #2 |

Phase 5: Offer Next Steps

After presenting the component spec and updating the registry, offer contextual next steps:

1. "Want me to build this?" — Chain to architect-plan-for-dispatch if the component needs code, or prompt-architect → prompt-to-skill if it's a Claude-powered workflow.

2. "Should we systemize another action?" — If the design dialog revealed adjacent actions that should also be components, offer to systemize them.

3. "Want to stress-test this design?" — Chain to devils-advocate to attack the component design and find gaps.

4. "Ready to see the full system map?" — Generate or update the visual system diagram showing all components and their connections.

5. "Should this be a Dispatch plan?" — If the component is complex enough, chain to architect-plan-for-dispatch for implementation.

Rules

1. Always scan the inventory first. Never design a component without knowing what skills and systems already exist. Duplicate components waste energy and create confusion.

2. One question at a time in the design dialog. Follow the interrogate pattern. Never stack questions.

3. Name things precisely. Component names should be specific enough that anyone reading the system registry immediately understands what each component does without opening the spec.

4. Interface contracts are non-negotiable. Every component must have explicitly defined inputs and outputs. "It just works" is not a contract. This is the connective tissue that makes modularity real.

5. Reference existing skills, don't rebuild them. If a step in the component's process is already handled by an installed skill, reference that skill by name. Components compose skills; they don't replace them.

6. Start small, grow from use. A system with 2-3 well-designed components that actually run beats a 15-component architecture diagram that never gets implemented. Resist the urge to over-design.

7. The user is always the ultimate consumer. Even in multi-component systems, the final output must serve the user's direct goals. If a component's output doesn't eventually reach the user or save the user time, it doesn't belong.

8. Never systemize without user confirmation. Present the component spec and get explicit approval before updating the system registry.

9. Preserve backward compatibility. When adding a component to an existing system, ensure it doesn't break the interface contracts of existing components. If it does, flag the breaking change explicitly.

10. Document the evolution path. Every component should have a clear "where this is going" statement so future systemization sessions can build on prior intent rather than re-discovering it.

Chaining

Upstream (feeds into systemize)

• Any successful action → systemize: The primary entry point. User did something that worked, now wants it to be part of a larger system.
• workflow-lock → systemize: A locked workflow that needs system context.
• interrogate → systemize: Complex systemization benefits from scoping first.

Downstream (systemize feeds into)

• systemize → prompt-architect: Design the Claude prompt for the component.
• systemize → prompt-to-skill: Install the component as a permanent skill.
• systemize → architect-plan-for-dispatch: Build the component as code.
• systemize → devils-advocate: Stress-test the component design.
• systemize → systemize: Recursively systemize adjacent actions revealed during the design dialog.

Parallel

• systemize + delegate: Use the delegate framework to determine the automation level of each component.
• systemize + design-doc-review: For complex components, run the spec through a design doc review before implementation.

Anti-Patterns

Over-systemization: Not everything needs to be a system component. If the action is truly standalone, has no upstream or downstream, and doesn't recur — just do it. Workflow-lock or prompt-to-skill may be the right level of abstraction.

Premature abstraction: Don't create interface contracts for data flows that don't exist yet. System components should wrap working actions, not theoretical ones.

System sprawl: If the system registry grows beyond 8-10 components, it's time to evaluate whether some components should be merged, deprecated, or split into a separate system.

Ignoring the inventory: The most common failure is building a component that duplicates an existing skill or conflicts with an existing component's interface. The Phase 0 inventory exists to prevent this.