Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
By linxule
Guide step-by-step reasoning and sequential thought processes for complex problem-solving in interpretive qualitative research, where human and AI collaborate as co-apprentices.
npx claudepluginhub linxule/interpretive-orchestration --plugin interpretive-orchestrationCommands are organized by **FUNCTION** (not just stage), because tools are used across multiple stages.
Surface epistemic foundations through Socratic questioning and coherence checking
Synthesis dialogue and reflexive pause for theoretical integration
Deep analytical reasoning via Sequential Thinking for complex decisions
Navigate paradoxes and integrate contradictions using Lotus Wisdom contemplative reasoning
Four-stage reflexive coding agent for Stage 2. Use when: 'code this document', 'apply my framework', 'dialogical coding', 'visible reasoning'. Organizes evidence with human interpretive authority.
Technical orchestration partner. Use when: 'set up analysis', 'configure models', 'batch processing', 'cost estimate', 'API setup'. Translates research goals to configurations.
Socratic dialogue for Stage 3 theory. Use when: 'theoretical contribution', 'connect to literature', 'frame findings', 'Stage 3'. Asks questions to deepen clarity.
Curious thinking partner for Stage 1. Use when: 'thinking partner', 'talk through coding', 'help articulate', 'Stage 1 support'. Asks questions without suggesting codes.
This skill should be used when users ask about which AI model to use for coding, mentions 'cost', 'batch', 'API', 'configure analysis', wants to process multiple documents, or needs to understand model capabilities and costs for Stage 2.
This skill should be used when users are ready to start Stage 2 coding, asks about processing documents systematically, needs to track coding progress, wants to generate audit documentation, or mentions 'batch', 'coding session', 'systematic coding'.
This skill should be used when users question their philosophical stance, their language contradicts their declared epistemology, they are moving between stages and want to verify coherence, mentions 'assumptions', 'examine', 'coherent', 'consistent', or something feels 'off' about their analytical approach.
This skill should be used when users need to think through a complex analytical decision, asks 'how should I approach this?' or 'help me think through...', is stuck on a difficult coding boundary, needs to plan dimensional analysis, or is building theoretical frameworks in Stage 3.
This skill should be used when users need to convert PDFs (especially with tables or figures), mentions 'convert', 'PDF', 'document processing', has complex academic papers to import, or asks about document conversion options.
Uses power tools
Uses Bash, Write, or Edit tools
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Own this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge.
Sign in to claimOwn this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge.
Sign in to claimBased on adoption, maintenance, documentation, and repository signals. Not a security audit or endorsement.
Write-up support for qualitative interview research. Guides methods drafting, findings structure, quote use, and revision with quality checks.
Skills and agents for anthropological research across the full research lifecycle โ from question formulation through publication and career advancement
Pragmatic qualitative analysis for interview data. Supports theory-informed or data-first approaches with systematic coding, quality indicators, and publication-ready synthesis.
PhD-level research capabilities: literature review, multi-source investigation, critical analysis, hypothesis-driven exploration, quantitative/qualitative methods, and lateral thinking
/catalog for protocol handbook, /onboard for quick recommendation + protocol learning, /report for Growth Map (usage analysis + insights integration), /dashboard for coverage dashboard, /compose for protocol composition authoring, /sophia for philosopher match (behavioral dimension analysis), /curses for strength-shadow analysis and attitude recommendations
Harness-native ECC plugin for engineering teams - 64 agents, 262 skills, 84 legacy command shims, reusable hooks, rules, MCP conventions, and operator workflows for Claude Code plus adjacent agent harnesses
Epistemic Partnership System for AI-Assisted Qualitative Research. Cowork-compatible version with commands and skills.
Collaborative memory for human-AI work โ persistent, searchable, interconnected
Claude Code plugin that delegates read-only review, challenge, free-form ask, and write-capable rescue work to the local kimi-code CLI. Includes an opt-in stop-time review gate and a PreToolUse hook that enforces per-command safety.
AI-augmented research environment. Interview-first onboarding, Obsidian vault setup, document conversion, scheduled automation, and ongoing research tools for academics.
Not a tool for faster coding. A partner for deeper thinking.
๐ Ready to start? โ INSTALL.md (complete setup from scratch)
๐ Already set up? โ QUICK-START.md (quick reference)
๐ Want depth? โ Keep reading below
๐ง Frameworks? โ Cognitio Emergens (Lin) | Interpretive Orchestration (Lin & Corley)
What you might expect: "Software that automates qualitative coding so I can finish faster"
What you'll actually get: "A thinking partner that deepens my reflexivity, challenges my assumptions, and helps me understand how I construct knowledge - making me a better researcher"
The difference matters.
This isn't another CAQDAS tool (NVivo, Atlas.ti, etc.) with AI bolted on. This isn't ChatGPT for ad-hoc document analysis. This isn't Google's AI Co-Scientist for qualitative research.
This is infrastructure for human-AI epistemic partnership in interpretive inquiry.
Traditional tools:
Epistemic partnership:
The goal: Transform how you think about interpretation itself, not just speed up coding.
Both human and AI are apprentices to the craft tradition of interpretive inquiry. Neither masters the other. Both learn from craft principles: rigor, reflexivity, theoretical sensitivity, interpretive depth.
Also known as human-AI-human "sandwich" from our original research.
| Stage | What Happens | AI Role |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Solo Practice ๐จ | Manual coding of 10-15 docs, memo-writing, framework development | Watches but doesn't intervene (theoretical sensitivity can't be automated) |
| 2. Collaboration ๐ค | Parallel streams (theoretical + empirical), synthesis, pattern characterization | 4-stage visible reasoning with @dialogical-coder |
| 3. Tradition Dialogue ๐ญ | Examine work through craft tradition's wisdom | @scholarly-companion asks tradition's questions |
The atelier ENFORCES Stage 1 - doors to collaborative workspace stay locked until solo practice complete.
This plugin instantiates Partnership Agency from Cognitio Emergens (Lin, 2025): "Human and AI boundaries dissolve into unified epistemic system generating insights neither could produce independently."
Four enabling conditions:
Our structure isn't constraint - it's architecture for Partnership Agency. We provide ONE rigorous path, grounded in Cognitio Emergens and Gioia/Constructivist tradition.
| Principle | What It Means |
|---|---|
| Epistemic Coherence | Plugin adapts to YOUR declared philosophy (ontology, epistemology, GT tradition) |
| Reflexivity as Strength | Prompts examine assumptions - awareness, not doubt |
| Human Authority | AI organizes and suggests; YOU interpret and decide (non-negotiable) |
| Visible Reasoning | 4-stage dialogical process shows HOW AI interpreted, not just WHAT |
| Meta-Cognition | Every interaction teaches you to think about thinking |
| Progressive Depth | Philosophy deepens through practice, not front-loaded lectures |
| Approach | Their Model | Our Model |
|---|---|---|
| vs CAQDAS | AI bolted onto manual tools | AI embedded with human authority maintained |
| vs ChatGPT | Ad-hoc prompts, no audit trail | Systematic 4-stage dialogical process |
| vs AI Co-Scientist | Full automation (STEM) | Human-centered augmentation (Social Science) |
Unique: First infrastructure treating epistemology as UX design - embeds meta-cognition, enforces sandwich methodology, bundles MCP ecosystem.
This plugin prioritizes friction over flow. If it stops you, it's asking you to think.
| Trade-off | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Transformation over reliability | Change how you think, not just process faster |
| Dialogue over determinism | Socratic onboarding adapts to YOU |
| Reflection over efficiency | Interpretive pauses are methodology, not bugs |