Stats
Actions
Tags
From flight-lines
Composes deterritorialized operations from arbitrary domains into problem-solving assemblages via lines of flight. Maintains parallel work-paths, revising for emergent structures. Useful for escaping stratified solution spaces.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/flight-lines:flight-linesThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Knowledge gets organized into **domains**—epidemiology, jazz theory, mycology, contract law. These are stratifications: useful for organizing expertise but not fundamental boundaries. They're territories.
Knowledge gets organized into domains—epidemiology, jazz theory, mycology, contract law. These are stratifications: useful for organizing expertise but not fundamental boundaries. They're territories.
Operations exist beneath these strata. "Sentinel surveillance" isn't essentially about disease—it's a capacity: strategic monitoring of high-signal locations in sparse search spaces. "Reharmonization" isn't essentially about jazz—it's changing underlying structure while preserving surface continuity. Operations are deterritorialized capacities that got captured by domain-strata through historical accident.
The conventional approach to problems stays within domain boundaries. Dating advice for dating problems. Language pedagogy for language problems. This is navigating along the strata—safe, predictable, limited.
Lines of flight are movements that escape stratified territories. When you recognize that rare book dealer "want list circulation" addresses the same structural constraint as epidemiological "contact tracing"—and both could apply to finding collaborators in a new city—you're accessing operations on a plane of consistency where domain labels don't constrain what composes with what.
Key insight: Operations compose based on structural fit, not semantic coherence. An assemblage of mycorrhizal networks + ham radio + rare book collecting is domain-incoherent but can be structurally coherent for a given problem.
Stratified approach:
Compositional approach:
A specific capacity with defined mechanics—not a concept or metaphor:
Examples:
A property of the problem that creates difficulty—independent of domain framing:
A composition of heterogeneous operations that work together. Assemblages don't require domain coherence—they require structural coherence:
A trajectory that escapes stratified solutions. When standard approaches feel exhausted and you start pulling operations from mycology and espionage and thermodynamics to address your problem—you're following a line of flight.
Not all lines of flight succeed. Some dissipate, some get recaptured by strata, some open genuine new territory.
This is not a linear pipeline. It's an ongoing process with parallel paths and constant revision.
Don't ask "what kind of problem is this?" (that's seeking a stratum to navigate within).
Ask: "What are the parallel concerns here? What structural properties make each one hard?"
Example: Fresh Start in a New City
An adult has moved to a new city. They want to build a life—not just survive, but flourish. Not replicate their old life, but become someone new while honoring who they've been.
Parallel concerns identified:
For each concern, structural constraints:
Territory constraints:
Connection constraints:
Becoming constraints:
For each structural constraint, ask: "What operations address this structural property?"
Don't constrain by domain. Query across everything you understand.
Cold start constraint (no existing network):
Operations that address cold start:
Sparse matching constraint (most people aren't compatible):
Operations:
Identity flux constraint (old identity doesn't fit):
Operations:
Don't create one master plan. Open multiple lines simultaneously.
Line A: Territorial Establishment
Line B: Network Seeding
Line C: Becoming Work
Run operations. Generate concrete outputs:
CQ calls executed:
Sentinel surveillance executed:
Want list circulation executed:
Nurse log executed:
Here's where the composer aspect becomes dynamic.
Execution changes structure. New structure reveals new constraints. New constraints suggest new operations.
After two weeks:
What emerged:
New constraints revealed:
New operations pulled in:
Revised assemblage:
The process continues until:
The composer doesn't have an end state. It's a way of navigating.
"Sentinel surveillance" works whether tracking disease, monitoring rare species, or finding your people in a new city. The operation exists independent of its origin domain.
When you use an operation, you're not doing "epidemiology" in your social life. You're accessing a capacity that epidemiology happened to articulate.
Mycorrhizal networks + ham radio + rare books is semantically absurd. It can be structurally coherent.
Domain mixing isn't a clever trick—it's the natural result of accessing operations beneath their domain-strata.
Don't create a master plan and execute it. Open multiple lines. Let some intensify, let some dissipate. Revise as structure changes.
The composer is an ongoing process, not a one-shot planner.
You can't fully analyze a problem then solve it. Execution reveals constraints analysis missed. Operations produce structure that suggests new operations.
Think: probe, act, sense, respond. Not: analyze, plan, execute.
The output of one operation becomes input for selecting the next. "Want list circulation" might surface someone who teaches you about "guild structures" (medieval crafts), which becomes a new operation addressing constraints you hadn't seen.
Domains you didn't know could contribute get pulled in as you go.
If you can generate concrete outputs—specific actions, real artifacts, actual protocols—the composition is working.
Vague analogies ("my social life is like a mycelial network") aren't operations. Specific procedures ("broadcast specific criteria through existing contacts, let matches come to you") are.
Use when:
Don't use when:
Open multiple lines. Most won't go anywhere. A few will resonate. Intensify those, let others go dormant or dissipate.
Don't pick one approach and commit. Don't try to optimize everything simultaneously.
Success with one operation often reveals related ones:
Let working operations pull in their neighbors.
When an operation doesn't quite fit, the friction reveals constraints you missed.
"Stepping stones assumes fixed patches, but my safe spaces are temporally unstable" → Reveals temporal dynamics constraint you hadn't modeled.
Breakdowns are information, not failures.
Not every line of flight needs to stay deterritorialized. Sometimes you find a new stratum that actually works. A stable job, a solid friend group, a neighborhood that fits.
The goal isn't permanent deterritorialization. It's having the capacity to follow lines of flight when strata aren't working.
If your assemblage composes 4+ unrelated domains, you're probably generating novel approaches.
Homogeneous composition (all operations from one domain) suggests staying within conventional territory. That's fine when it works.
Month 1: Opening Lines
Territory line: Found temporary housing, started sentinel surveillance on neighborhoods Connection line: CQ calls across three contexts, want list to five people Becoming line: Nurse log inventory (what from past is substrate?)
Concrete outputs:
Month 2: Selective Intensification
What emerged:
Revised assemblage:
Month 3: Structure Stabilizes and Transforms
Territory: Found housing in target neighborhood. Territorial concern moves to background. Connection: Three genuine connections forming. Network has seed structure. Becoming: Clearer sense of new version. Some branches merged back, some still open.
New concerns emerging:
New operations being queried:
The problem has transformed. You're no longer "starting fresh"—you're in the next phase. The composer continues.
vs. Self-help / Life coaching: Self-help stays within its stratum. "Network more." "Put yourself out there." Flight lines pull operations from mycology and ham radio and epidemiology.
vs. Analogical reasoning: Analogies map concepts. "My social life is like a garden." Flight lines execute operations. "Apply succession dynamics: pioneer species first, then guilds."
vs. Design thinking: Design thinking iterates within problem domain. Flight lines compose across domains based on structural fit.
vs. Systems thinking: Systems thinking analyzes dynamics within a frame. Flight lines escape frames entirely.
Operations exist beneath domain-strata as deterritorialized capacities. When problems resist stratified solutions, you can follow lines of flight by composing operations based on structural fit rather than semantic coherence.
The composer maintains parallel lines, intensifying some and letting others dissipate, constantly revising as execution produces new structure. It's not a planning method—it's a way of navigating.
Domain boundaries are real but not fundamental. Operations transcend them. Compose boldly, revise constantly, trust what produces concrete outputs.
npx claudepluginhub mbilokonsky/claude_skills --plugin flight-linesFacilitates analogical transfer sessions: abstracts problem structure, maps to distant domains like biology or history, transfers operating principles. Supports --brief, --tetralemma, --polarity modes for creative problem-solving.
Guides strategy for startups and uncertain projects using Effectuation. Start with means, co-create with partners, leverage contingencies, and accept affordable loss instead of rigid planning.
Orchestrates a 5-step synoptic cycle for panoramic synthesis across 3+ domains, producing integrated understanding rather than sequential compromise. Use for multi-domain problems, conflicting expert perspectives, or architectural decisions affecting multiple stakeholders.