| name | talk-stage3-concepts |
| description | Builds a numbered, categorized concept catalogue from the talk summary and timeline, scoring each concept HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW for talk potential with optional repo enrichment. Use when you need a structured inventory of concepts before choosing a talk angle, or when assessing which ideas have the strongest presentation potential. |
| allowed-tools | Write Read |
| effort | high |
Talk Stage 3: Concepts
Builds an exhaustive catalogue of all identifiable concepts in the source material. Each concept is numbered, categorized, and scored for its talk potential.
When to Use This Skill
- After Stage 1 (and Stage 2 if REX mode)
- Before Stage 4 (Position needs the concept catalogue)
- When you want a structured inventory of what's available before choosing an angle
What This Skill Does
- Reads the summary: loads
{slug}-summary.md
- Reads the timeline (if available): enriches scoring with verified dates
- Extracts concepts: full scan of the source material
- Categorizes: assigns each concept to a domain category
- Scores: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW for talk potential
- Optional repo enrichment: if repo_path is provided, analyzes AI config concepts
- Writes output files
Input
talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-summary.md (required)talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-timeline.md (optional, enriches REX concepts)repo_path (optional, for config/infrastructure concept extraction)
Output
talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-concepts.md (main catalogue)talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-concepts-enriched.md (if repo_path provided)
Scoring Criteria
HIGH: Strong potential
- Demonstrable live or with a screenshot
- Counter-intuitive or surprising (triggers a reaction)
- Associated with verifiable numbers
- Concrete and actionable (explainable in 30 seconds)
- Differentiator vs other talks on the same topic
MEDIUM: Moderate potential
- Useful but expected (not surprising)
- Missing concrete proof or numbers
- Too specific to one particular context
- Needs too much explanation for a 30-min talk
LOW: Weak potential
- Too abstract or philosophical without concrete grounding
- Already heavily covered by other speakers
- Requires specific technical background
- Hard to illustrate in a slide
Scoring discipline: Max 30% HIGH. If everything is HIGH, nothing is.
Standard Categories
| Category | Description |
|---|
| Architecture | Technical decisions, stack, structural patterns |
| Tooling | Tools, workflows, automations |
| Philosophy | Principles, mindsets, approaches |
| Workflow | Work processes, habits |
| Knowledge Transfer | Onboarding, team, knowledge sharing |
| Problems | Obstacles encountered, trade-offs |
| Open Source | Contributions, sharing, community |
| AI Config | AI configuration, profiles, knowledge feeding |
| AI Infrastructure | Agents, skills, hooks, commands |
| AI Quality | Review, tests, anti-patterns |
| AI Security | Security hooks, guardrails |
| Optimization | Performance, cost/token reduction |
Adapt or create categories if the talk has domain-specific areas.
Output Format
concepts.md
# Key Concepts: {provisional title}
**Date**: {date}
**Source**: {source path} x Summary x Timeline (if available)
---
## Concept table
| # | Concept | Category | Short description | Talk potential |
|---|---------|----------|------------------|----------------|
| 1 | **{Concept name}** | {Category} | {1-2 concrete sentences} | HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW |
...
---
## Category breakdown
| Category | Count | HIGH concepts | Examples |
|----------|-------|---------------|---------|
| {category} | {n} | {n} | {examples} |
...
| **TOTAL** | **{N}** | **{N HIGH}** | |
---
## Recommendations for positioning
{3-5 sentences on concept clusters that could form the talk's acts.
Which HIGH concepts reinforce each other? What narrative arc is emerging?}
concepts-enriched.md (if repo available)
Same structure but focused on what the repo analysis reveals:
- Specialized agents (count, size, roles)
- Invocable skills (catalogue, domains covered)
- System hooks (events, logic)
- Modular config (profiles, modules, pipeline)
- Project-specific code patterns
For each enriched concept, include:
- Exact source: file and approximate line
- Demo-able: yes/no (can it be shown in a slide or live?)
Anti-patterns
- Creating overly granular concepts (one feature = one concept max)
- Scoring HIGH by default (be selective)
- Omitting LOW concepts (they're useful in positioning as "angles to avoid")
- Duplicating very similar concepts (merge them instead)
- Analyzing repo code if the repo isn't accessible
Validation Checklist
Tips
- The concept catalogue is what Stage 4 (Position) draws from; the richer it is, the better the angle choices
- LOW concepts are valuable: they define the boundaries of what NOT to put in the talk
- If two concepts feel very similar, merge them (a smaller, sharper list beats a long diluted one)
Related
