| name | pyramid-principle |
| description | Hierarchical content structure - answer first, then supporting arguments, then details |
| foundation | Barbara Minto's Pyramid Principle |
| use_case | Outlines, business communication, structured explanations |
Pyramid Principle Skill
Foundation: Barbara Minto's pyramid principle for clear, logical communication
Core Concept: Start with the answer, then provide supporting arguments, then add details.
Why This Works:
- Reader gets main point immediately (respects their time)
- Supporting structure makes logical sense
- Details are contextualized (not lost)
- Reader can stop at any level and still understand core idea
- Reduces cognitive load (top-down, not bottom-up)
The Pyramid Structure
[ANSWER / Core Message]
|
┌──────────────────┼──────────────────┐
| | |
[Argument 1] [Argument 2] [Argument 3]
| | |
┌───┼───┐ ┌───┼───┐ ┌───┼───┐
| | | | | | | | |
[Details] [Details] [Details] [Details] [Details] [Details]
Levels:
- Level 1: The answer/conclusion (what they need to know)
- Level 2: Major supporting arguments (why answer is true)
- Level 3: Evidence and examples (what proves arguments)
- Level 4: Details and elaboration (depth as needed)
Core Rules
Rule 1: Answer First
Always start with the conclusion
❌ Don't do this (bottom-up):
We analyzed 10 frameworks. We tested each for 6 months.
We measured productivity, reliability, and ease of use.
Framework X performed best. Therefore, we recommend Framework X.
✅ Do this (top-down):
**We recommend Framework X** because it delivers 30% higher productivity
with proven reliability over 6 months of testing.
Here's why:
1. Productivity: 30% improvement vs alternatives
2. Reliability: Zero critical failures in production
3. Ease of adoption: 2-week learning curve vs 2-month for alternatives
Why: Reader knows the answer immediately. Supporting details provide confidence, but aren't prerequisite to understanding recommendation.
Rule 2: Group Related Ideas
Ideas in each group must be:
- Related to each other (same category)
- Support the idea above them
- At same level of abstraction
✅ Good grouping:
Core Message: "CAF transforms Claude Code into domain-specific agents"
├─ Argument 1: Customization spectrum (out-of-box → CAF → SDK)
├─ Argument 2: Domain transformation examples
└─ Argument 3: Proven patterns and constraints
❌ Bad grouping (mixed levels):
Core Message: "CAF transforms Claude Code into domain-specific agents"
├─ Argument 1: Customization spectrum
├─ Argument 2: File-based persistence (this is a detail, not major argument)
└─ Argument 3: Stefan uses it for ML4T book (this is an example, not argument)
Rule 3: Logical Order
Arguments must follow logical sequence:
Structural order: Parts of something
- Example: "Framework has 3 components: commands, agents, skills"
Chronological order: Time sequence
- Example: "Workflow: positioning → research → outline → draft → review"
Comparative order: Ranking or comparison
- Example: "Benefits ranked: reliability > productivity > ease"
Problem-solution order: Issue then resolution
- Example: "Problem: Generic AI agents fail. Solution: Domain-specific customization."
Application to Content Types
Application 1: Outlines (Architect Agent)
Structure:
# Outline
## Opening (Level 1: Answer)
- Hook (grab attention)
- Core message (the answer)
- Preview (what's coming)
## Body (Level 2: Arguments)
### Argument 1: [First supporting point]
- Evidence (Level 3)
- Examples (Level 3)
- Details (Level 4)
### Argument 2: [Second supporting point]
- Evidence (Level 3)
- Examples (Level 3)
- Details (Level 4)
### Argument 3: [Third supporting point]
- Evidence (Level 3)
- Examples (Level 3)
- Details (Level 4)
## Closing (Level 1: Reinforce Answer)
- Restate core message
- Call to action
Example for CAF white paper:
Opening: "Transform Claude Code into specialized domain agents"
├─ Argument 1: Customization spectrum (out-of-box → CAF → SDK)
│ ├─ Evidence: What each level provides
│ ├─ Example: Content management workflow
│ └─ Details: When to use each level
├─ Argument 2: Domain transformation mechanism
│ ├─ Evidence: How markdown customization works
│ ├─ Example: Commands, agents, skills
│ └─ Details: Technical architecture
└─ Argument 3: Proven patterns and constraints
├─ Evidence: 6 months production use
├─ Example: Specific patterns
└─ Details: How constraints prevent failure
Closing: Reinforce transformation message + CTA
Application 2: Business Communication
Memo structure:
Subject: Recommendation
**Recommendation**: [The answer - one sentence]
**Rationale**: [3-5 supporting arguments]
1. Argument 1
2. Argument 2
3. Argument 3
**Details**: [Evidence for each argument]
[Expand on arguments with data, examples, elaboration]
Why this works: Executive reads first line, gets answer, decides if they need to read more.
Application 3: Technical Explanations
Explain "What is CAF?":
❌ Bottom-up (reader lost):
Claude Code has plugins. Plugins have commands. Commands invoke agents.
Agents use skills. Skills provide patterns. Patterns create frameworks.
Therefore, CAF is a meta-framework for domain-specific agent customization.
✅ Top-down (pyramid):
**CAF transforms Claude Code into domain-specific agents through markdown-based customization.**
How it works:
1. Commands: Encapsulate domain workflows
2. Agents: Provide specialized capabilities
3. Skills: Define behavior patterns
Why it matters:
- Transforms generic AI into domain-expert
- Uses simple markdown (no coding required)
- Proven patterns prevent common failures
Reader benefit: Understands "what it is" immediately, can drill into details if interested.
Common Mistakes
Mistake 1: Burying the Lede
❌ Don't hide the answer:
We conducted extensive research. We analyzed frameworks.
We tested implementations. We gathered feedback.
After 6 months, we discovered that...
✅ Answer first:
**CAF prevents AI chaos through stateless, file-based architecture.**
Evidence from 6 months testing:
- Zero state corruption failures
- 100% reproducible results
- Context preserved across sessions
Mistake 2: Mixed Abstraction Levels
❌ Arguments at different levels:
1. Customization spectrum (high-level concept)
2. File-based persistence (implementation detail)
3. Domain transformation (high-level concept)
✅ Same level:
1. Customization spectrum (what CAF provides)
2. Domain transformation (how it works)
3. Proven patterns (why it's reliable)
Mistake 3: Illogical Order
❌ Random order:
1. Benefits
2. How it works
3. What it is
✅ Logical order:
1. What it is (establish understanding)
2. How it works (explain mechanism)
3. Benefits (show value)
Mistake 4: No Hierarchy
❌ Flat list:
- Point 1
- Point 2
- Point 3
- Point 4
- Point 5
(All at same level, no structure)
✅ Hierarchical:
Core Message
├─ Major Point 1
│ ├─ Supporting detail
│ └─ Example
├─ Major Point 2
│ ├─ Supporting detail
│ └─ Example
└─ Major Point 3
├─ Supporting detail
└─ Example
Quality Checklist
When applying pyramid principle, verify:
Integration with Other Skills
Pyramid + excellent-writing:
- Pyramid: What structure to use
- excellent-writing: How to write clearly within that structure
Pyramid + SCQA:
- Pyramid: Overall hierarchical structure
- SCQA: How to structure narrative within pyramid (especially opening)
Pyramid + positioning-first:
- Positioning: What the core message is (Level 1 of pyramid)
- Pyramid: How to structure arguments supporting that message
References
Foundation: Barbara Minto, "The Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing and Thinking"
Key insight: "Any intelligent reader can absorb only one thought at a time, and will automatically assume that any sentence that follows a previous one is intended to explain that thought further."
Application: Therefore, organize content to match how readers naturally process information - top-down, hierarchical, answer-first.
Skill Version: 1.0
Created: 2025-10-31
Used by: architect agent (outlines), author agent (optional)
Key Innovation: Answer-first hierarchical structure that respects reader's cognitive load
