By name: frameworks description: | Library of 50 engineering, product, design, and thinking frameworks organized by project stage. Determines stage, activates the right set, delivers specific recommendations with conflict resolution. Use when: (1) user says "/frameworks", "run through frameworks", "which principles apply here", (2) evaluating a project against engineering best practices, (3) need structured analysis by project stage.
Frameworks: Project Stage Framework Library
Determines the project stage, activates the relevant framework set, applies each one specifically to the project, explicitly surfaces conflicts and their resolution.
Works with any project type: AI product, service, course, content, business model, text, design, architecture, code, presentation.
Triggers
/frameworks <project description>Run [X] through frameworksWhich frameworks apply to [X]?Evaluate [X] at stage [stage]Which principles apply here?Check [X] against DRY / KISS / SOLID / JTBD / ...(specific framework)What stage are we at and what should we do?
Workflow
Step 1: Determine stage
From context or user indication. If unclear, ask.
| # | Stage | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ideation / Problem Framing | Formulating the problem, finding leverage, defining audience |
| 2 | Architecture / Design | Choosing stack, designing structure, component boundaries |
| 3 | MVP / First Launch | Building the first working version, shipping |
| 4 | Iteration / Growth | Feedback, iterations, expanding functionality |
| 5 | Polish / Scale | Refinement, scaling, retention, love |
| 6 | Safety / Consequence Audit | Assessing consequences before scaling, sensitive data |
Step 2: Activate stage frameworks
Do not dump all 50. Only the ones relevant to the current stage.
Stage 1: Ideation / Problem Framing
First Principles, JTBD, Inversion, Chesterton's Fence, Second-Order Thinking, Gall's Law, Occam's Razor.
Stage 2: Architecture / Design
Software 1.0/2.0/3.0, Separation of Concerns, KISS, Conway's Law, CAP, 12-Factor, POLA, Composition over Inheritance, Event-Driven Architecture.
Stage 3: MVP / First Launch
Worse is Better, YAGNI, Build-Measure-Learn, Pareto, Fail Fast, Convention over Configuration, Reversible Decisions, Verification > Generation.
Stage 4: Iteration / Growth
RICE, North Star Metric, Kano Model, Evals-Driven Development, HITL, Autonomy Slider, Context Engineering, SOLID, DRY, Strategic Patience + Tactical Impatience.
Stage 5: Polish / Scale
Dieter Rams' 10 Principles, Affordance, Progressive Disclosure, Jakob's Law, MLP, Lindy Effect, Hick's Law, Miller's Law, Principle of Least Surprise.
Stage 6: Safety / Consequence Audit
Second-Order Thinking, Inversion, POLA, HITL, Principle of Least Surprise, Jagged Intelligence.
Step 3: Apply each framework SPECIFICALLY
Not "use KISS". Instead: "here is what specifically to remove / simplify / change". Not "JTBD". Instead: "here is the job the user hires this product to do".
Each active framework = a specific observation about the project + an action.
Step 4: Check for conflicts
If two active frameworks give opposite recommendations, surface the conflict explicitly and apply the resolution rule (see "Conflict Points" section).
Step 5: Deliver recommendations
Prioritized action list. Each action is tied to a framework.
Framework Catalog
Category A: "Remove the unnecessary"
Cut to the essence, remove everything that does not carry value.
| Framework | Core idea |
|---|---|
| DRY | Every piece of knowledge has a single representation |
| KISS | Simplest solution that works |
| YAGNI | Do not build what is not needed now |
| Occam's Razor | All else equal, the simplest explanation |
| Dieter Rams' 10 Principles | Innovative, useful, aesthetic, understandable, unobtrusive, honest, long-lasting, thorough, environmentally friendly, as little design as possible |
| Progressive Disclosure | Reveal complexity gradually |
| Hick's Law | More options = longer decision time |
| Miller's Law | 7 plus or minus 2 items in working memory |
Category B: "Structure correctly"
Right boundaries between system parts.
| Framework | Core idea |
|---|---|
| SOLID | Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov Substitution, Interface Segregation, Dependency Inversion |
| Separation of Concerns | Each module handles one thing |
| Unix Philosophy | Do one thing well, combine through pipes |
| Composition over Inheritance | Build from parts instead of deep hierarchies |
| 12-Factor App | Config, dependencies, statelessness for SaaS |
| Conway's Law | Architecture mirrors organization structure |
| POLA | Minimum privileges for a component |
| CAP Theorem | Consistency, availability, partition tolerance: pick two |
| Event-Driven Architecture | Components communicate through events |
| Convention over Configuration | Sensible defaults over endless settings |
Category C: "Move smart"
Right priorities and speed.
| Framework | Core idea |
|---|---|
| Build-Measure-Learn | Fast cycle: hypothesis, experiment, data |
| JTBD | People "hire" a product for a specific job |
| RICE | Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort for prioritization |
| North Star Metric | Single metric defining success |
| Pareto (80/20) | 20% effort yields 80% results |
| Kano Model | Must-have, performance, delighters |
| MLP | Minimum Lovable Product |
| Double Diamond | Discover, define, develop, deliver |
| Reversible vs Irreversible Decisions | Type 1 vs Type 2 doors. Reversible ones: go fast |
| Fail Fast | Errors surface as early as possible |
| Strategic Patience, Tactical Impatience | Long-term vision, daily urgency |
Category D: "Think deeper"
Do not fool yourself, dig to the truth.
| Framework | Core idea |
|---|---|
| First Principles | Break down to basic truths, reassemble |
| Inversion | "How to guarantee failure?" and avoid that |
| Second-Order Thinking | What is the consequence of the consequence? |
| Chesterton's Fence | Do not remove a fence until you understand why it was put there |
| Lindy Effect | Survived long = will survive equally long |
| Gall's Law | Working complex systems evolve from working simple systems |
| Worse is Better | Simple, slightly incorrect implementation beats complex correct one |
| Principle of Least Surprise | System behaves as user expects |
| Affordance | Object suggests how to use it |
| Jakob's Law | Users expect products to work like other products |
Category E: "AI-specific"
Frameworks for the AI era.
| Framework | Core idea |
|---|---|
| Software 1.0 / 2.0 / 3.0 | Explicit code, trained models, prompts. Each layer subsumes the previous |
| Autonomy Slider | User chooses AI autonomy level |
| Jagged Intelligence | LLMs are brilliant and stupid simultaneously, unpredictably |
| Anterograde Amnesia | LLMs do not consolidate knowledge between sessions |
| HITL | Human in the loop for decisions |
| Evals-Driven Development | Development through evaluation sets |
| Context Engineering | Designing what enters the context window |
| Prompt, Plan, Execute, Verify | AI agent work cycle |
| Verification > Generation | Feedback loop matters more than generation |
| Design for the model 6 months from now | Design for future AI capabilities |
Conflict Points Between Frameworks
When a conflict is detected, surface it explicitly and apply the rule:
| Conflict | Resolution |
|---|---|
| YAGNI vs Design for model 6mo from now | YAGNI for features (do not add "just in case"), future-proofing for interfaces (build flexibility into foundations) |
| Worse is Better vs Dieter Rams / MLP | Worse is Better at MVP/Launch, Rams/MLP at Polish/Scale |
| KISS vs SOLID | KISS by default, SOLID when team > 3 or codebase crosses complexity threshold |
| Convention over Config vs Autonomy Slider | Convention for builders (sensible defaults), Autonomy Slider for end users (control) |
| Build-Measure-Learn vs Research-first | BML for product-market fit, research-first for foundational capabilities and safety-critical work |
| Fail Fast vs Safety-first | Fail Fast for technical errors (bugs, API), Safety First for impact on people (data, privacy, bias) |
Output Format
## Frameworks: [project/feature name]
### Stage: [N] - [stage name]
### Active Frameworks
**Category [X]: "[name]"**
- **[Framework]:** [specific application to this project]
- **[Framework]:** [specific application]
**Category [Y]: "[name]"**
- **[Framework]:** [specific application]
### Framework Conflicts
[If any: nature of the divergence, which resolution rule, why]
### Recommendations (prioritized)
1. [action] <- [framework]
2. [action] <- [framework]
3. [action] <- [framework]
Principles
- Frameworks are tools, not dogma. Project context beats framework. Note this explicitly.
- Specificity is mandatory. No abstract "apply KISS". Only specific observations and actions.
- Stage is the routing key. Some frameworks give opposite recommendations at different stages. Stage resolves.
- Not all frameworks are active. Each stage has its own set. Do not dump all 50.
- Conflicts are surfaced explicitly. Show the divergence + apply the resolution rule.
Special invocation modes
Specific framework: "Check against JTBD" applies JTBD + shows related relevant frameworks.
No stage specified: Claude determines stage from project context.
Multiple stages: If the project spans stages (part in MVP, part already in Growth), activate frameworks for both stages and note this.