From interpretive-orchestration-cowork
This skill should be used when patterns seem contradictory but both feel true, user is stuck in either/or thinking, theoretical and empirical streams seem irreconcilable, or user mentions 'paradox', 'tension', 'contradiction', 'both/and'. Helps integrate opposites at a higher level.
npx claudepluginhub linxule/interpretive-orchestration --plugin interpretive-orchestration-coworkThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Navigate apparent contradictions and integrate tensions using contemplative reasoning. Invokes Lotus Wisdom MCP with qualitative research framing.
Guides Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR) with cacheComponents enabled. Implements 'use cache', cacheLife(), cacheTag(), revalidateTag(), static/dynamic optimization, and cache debugging.
Guides building MCP servers enabling LLMs to interact with external services via tools. Covers best practices, TypeScript/Node (MCP SDK), Python (FastMCP).
Generates original PNG/PDF visual art via design philosophy manifestos for posters, graphics, and static designs on user request.
Navigate apparent contradictions and integrate tensions using contemplative reasoning. Invokes Lotus Wisdom MCP with qualitative research framing.
Use this skill when:
Lotus Wisdom (bundled, no API key required)
Lotus Wisdom applies contemplative problem-solving through five domains:
Different approaches to truth - sometimes direct, sometimes gradual.
Seeing how apparent opposites can be integrated at a higher level.
The mind watching its own understanding - reflexivity in action.
Natural arcs of inquiry - open, engage, express, complete.
Pauses to let insights emerge from stillness.
Use Lotus Wisdom to navigate this tension:
Apparent Contradiction:
- On one hand: [First perspective]
- On the other hand: [Second perspective]
Context:
- Research question: [from config]
- Why this matters: [stakes of resolution]
Help me see if there's a higher integration or if the tension itself
is meaningful for my theorizing.
Help me navigate this tension in my data:
Pattern A: Participants describe wanting more autonomy
Pattern B: Same participants describe wanting more guidance
Is this a contradiction? A paradox? Something else?
What might integration look like?
Navigate this tension:
Theoretical expectation: Sensemaking is retrospective (Weick)
Empirical finding: Participants describe prospective sensemaking
Is my data challenging theory, or am I misunderstanding something?
Two concepts seem to overlap:
- "Selective symptom tracking"
- "Personalizing medical advice"
Are these the same thing? Different aspects? A continuum?
Help me see what I might be missing.
Lotus Wisdom produces:
Sample output structure:
Opening: Recognizing the apparent contradiction
Engage: Examining each side deeply
Transform: Seeking the higher integration
Integrate: What holds both truths
Embody: How this changes your understanding
Lotus Wisdom is particularly appropriate for:
The tool doesn't resolve tensions by choosing sides - it helps you see how both can be true at different levels of analysis.
/qual-wisdom-check triggers this skill