Claude Cursor Skill

tasty-abstraction

Use when a user wants to design an abstraction boundary that collapses a complex implementation into a simpler interface without leaking internal state. Not for implementation.

LLM Mart · 0 points · 8 0 0

Virus-scanned Reviewed automatically before listing.

Full trust report

Download outlinedriven-odin-claude-plugin-plugins_odin-planning_skills_tasty-abstraction-b05a1e3.zip · 1 KB

outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin 37 0 forks Apache-2.0 Updated 12d ago

Part of outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin — 120 skills

Install

skills CLI

npx skills add https://github.com/OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin/tree/main/plugins/odin-planning/skills/tasty-abstraction

Claude Code

claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install outlinedriven-odin-claude-plugin@llmmart

Git git clone https://github.com/OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin.git

The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.

Skill manifest

Tasty abstraction

Contract

Field	Bound contract
Trigger	User wants to design an abstraction boundary that collapses a complex implementation into a simpler interface
Authority	Read-only. No file, VCS, credential, paid, published, deployed, or remote mutation. Stops before implementation.
Side effect	Chat output: one abstraction specification document
Done	A standalone specification exists detailing the abstraction boundary, leak surface, and usage constraints

Inputs

Target problem (required): the concrete complexity, repetition, or leak the abstraction must address.
Raw form (required): the current unabstracted surface the user works with directly.
Identified failure modes (required): the ways the raw form breaks, surprises, or requires expert knowledge.

Procedure

Enumerate the raw form's surface and failure modes. List every operation, concept, and escape hatch the user touches, plus every failure mode supplied as input. If the raw form has no meaningful complexity to collapse, report that finding and write no specification. Done when: the surface and failure modes are enumerated, or the workflow stops because no problem exists.
Propose a collapsed boundary. The boundary must collapse at least two raw-form concepts into one interface operation, expose every escape hatch the raw form offers as a direct pass-through or named override, and introduce no concept that does not exist in the raw form. Done when: one boundary is proposed meeting all three constraints.
Map escape hatches for raw access. For every point where the user must reach past the abstraction, state whether the hatch is sealed, exposed as configuration, or documented as a known seam. Done when: every escape hatch is classified.
Document leaked surface and trade-offs. Every point where the abstraction can break, surprise, or require raw-form knowledge is a leak. For each leak, state the trade-off: what the abstraction gains by leaking here and what the user must still understand. Done when: every leak and trade-off is documented.
Write the specification. The specification contains: abstraction name, boundary definition, surface comparison table (raw-form concepts mapped to abstraction concepts), escape-hatch mapping, leak surface inventory with trade-offs, and usage contract (when to use, when to bypass, what the user must still understand about the raw form). Deliver as chat output. Done when: the specification is complete and delivered.

Failure and recovery

Failure class	Rule
`boundary-violation`	The abstraction cannot collapse the raw form without leaking the problem it exists to hide. Report which leak breaks the boundary. Write no specification.

Partial results are not artifacts. If any step fails, no specification is delivered.

Output

One abstraction specification delivered as chat output: boundary definition, surface comparison, escape-hatch mapping, leak surface with trade-offs, and usage contract.

Files (odin-claude-plugin)

agents

openai.yaml 223 B

interface:
  display_name: "Tasty Abstraction"
  short_description: "Use when a user wants to design an abstraction boundary that collapses a complex implementation into a simpler interface without leaking internal state."

SKILL.md 3.2 KB

---
name: tasty-abstraction
description: 'Use when a user wants to design an abstraction boundary that collapses a complex implementation into a simpler interface without leaking internal state. Not for implementation.'
---

# Tasty abstraction

## Contract

| Field | Bound contract |
|---|---|
| Trigger | User wants to design an abstraction boundary that collapses a complex implementation into a simpler interface |
| Authority | Read-only. No file, VCS, credential, paid, published, deployed, or remote mutation. Stops before implementation. |
| Side effect | Chat output: one abstraction specification document |
| Done | A standalone specification exists detailing the abstraction boundary, leak surface, and usage constraints |

## Inputs

- Target problem (required): the concrete complexity, repetition, or leak the abstraction must address.
- Raw form (required): the current unabstracted surface the user works with directly.
- Identified failure modes (required): the ways the raw form breaks, surprises, or requires expert knowledge.

## Procedure

1. **Enumerate the raw form's surface and failure modes.** List every operation, concept, and escape hatch the user touches, plus every failure mode supplied as input. If the raw form has no meaningful complexity to collapse, report that finding and write no specification. Done when: the surface and failure modes are enumerated, or the workflow stops because no problem exists.

2. **Propose a collapsed boundary.** The boundary must collapse at least two raw-form concepts into one interface operation, expose every escape hatch the raw form offers as a direct pass-through or named override, and introduce no concept that does not exist in the raw form. Done when: one boundary is proposed meeting all three constraints.

3. **Map escape hatches for raw access.** For every point where the user must reach past the abstraction, state whether the hatch is sealed, exposed as configuration, or documented as a known seam. Done when: every escape hatch is classified.

4. **Document leaked surface and trade-offs.** Every point where the abstraction can break, surprise, or require raw-form knowledge is a leak. For each leak, state the trade-off: what the abstraction gains by leaking here and what the user must still understand. Done when: every leak and trade-off is documented.

5. **Write the specification.** The specification contains: abstraction name, boundary definition, surface comparison table (raw-form concepts mapped to abstraction concepts), escape-hatch mapping, leak surface inventory with trade-offs, and usage contract (when to use, when to bypass, what the user must still understand about the raw form). Deliver as chat output. Done when: the specification is complete and delivered.

## Failure and recovery

| Failure class | Rule |
|---|---|
| `boundary-violation` | The abstraction cannot collapse the raw form without leaking the problem it exists to hide. Report which leak breaks the boundary. Write no specification. |

Partial results are not artifacts. If any step fails, no specification is delivered.

## Output

One abstraction specification delivered as chat output: boundary definition, surface comparison, escape-hatch mapping, leak surface with trade-offs, and usage contract.