Abstraction Ladder Framework

The ladder uses 3-5 levels connecting universal principles to concrete details. Example:

• L1: "Software should be maintainable"
• L2: "Use modular architecture"
• L3: "Apply dependency injection"
• L4: "UserService injects IUserRepository"
• L5: constructor(private repo: IUserRepository) {}

Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

Abstraction Ladder Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Gather requirements
- [ ] Step 2: Choose approach
- [ ] Step 3: Build the ladder
- [ ] Step 4: Validate quality
- [ ] Step 5: Deliver and explain

Step 1: Gather requirements

Ask the user to clarify topic, purpose, audience, scope (suggest 4 levels), and starting point (top-down, bottom-up, or middle-out). This ensures the ladder serves the user's actual need.

Step 2: Choose approach

For straightforward cases with clear topics → Use resources/template.md. For complex cases with multiple parallel ladders or unusual constraints → Study resources/methodology.md. To see examples → Show user resources/examples/ (api-design.md, hiring-process.md).

Step 3: Build the ladder

Create abstraction-concrete-examples.md with topic, 3-5 distinct abstraction levels, connections between levels, and 2-3 edge cases. Ensure top level is universal, bottom level has measurable specifics, and transitions are logical. Direction options: top-down (principle → examples), bottom-up (observations → principles), or middle-out (familiar → both directions).

Step 4: Validate quality

Self-assess using resources/evaluators/rubric_abstraction_concrete_examples.json. Check: each level is distinct, transitions are clear, top level is universal, bottom level is specific, edge cases reveal insights, assumptions are stated, no topic drift, serves stated purpose. Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5. If any criterion < 3, revise before delivering.

Step 5: Deliver and explain

Present the completed abstraction-concrete-examples.md file. Highlight key insights revealed by the ladder, note interesting edge cases or tensions discovered, and suggest applications based on their original purpose.

Common Patterns

For communication across levels:

• Share L1-L2 with executives (strategy/principles)
• Share L2-L3 with managers (approaches/methods)
• Share L3-L5 with implementers (details/specifics)

For validation:

• Check if L5 reality matches L1 principles
• Identify gaps between adjacent levels
• Find where principles break down

For design:

• Use L1-L2 to guide decisions
• Use L3-L4 to specify requirements
• Use L5 for actual implementation

Guardrails

Do:

• State assumptions explicitly at each level
• Test edge cases that challenge the principles
• Make concrete levels truly concrete (numbers, measurements, specifics)
• Make abstract levels broadly applicable (not domain-locked)
• Ensure each level is understandable given the previous level

Don't:

• Use vague language ("good", "better", "appropriate") without defining terms
• Make huge conceptual jumps between levels
• Let different levels drift to different topics
• Skip the validation step (the rubric check ensures quality)
• Front-load expertise - explain clearly for the target audience

Quick Reference

• Template for standard cases: resources/template.md
• Methodology for complex cases: resources/methodology.md
• Examples to study: resources/examples/api-design.md, resources/examples/hiring-process.md
• Quality rubric: resources/evaluators/rubric_abstraction_concrete_examples.json