--- name: layers-orient description: Diagnostic audit across all seven layers — identifies the bottleneck layer and recommends where to focus --- # /layers-orient *Assumes `/layers-intro` has been loaded for framework context.* Orient is a rapid diagnostic — the front door for finding the **live decisions** the other skills then work. It maps the current state of decisions across all seven layers, identifies the bottleneck — the lowest layer with unresolved or risky decisions — and recommends where to focus next. It is not a deep dive into any layer. That's what the individual layer skills are for. Orient answers the prior question: *which layer deserves attention most urgently?* Keep it fast and light — the output is a short audit and one recommendation, not a report. **What it assesses:** - Whether key decisions have been made at each layer, and how solidly - Whether decisions treated as solid are actually assumptions - Which layer is the most foundational with unresolved work, creating risk for everything above **Quality signals — when orient is done well:** - The bottleneck layer is specifically named, not vaguely gestured at - Assumed layers are distinguished from Strong ones — they require different responses - The recommendation connects to a specific skill with a clear reason --- ## Guided session *Describe your design situation and what prompted you to pick it up, or say "let's orient" to start.* (Capture is opt-in and light — see `/layers-intro`. For orient, the audit table itself is usually all that's worth keeping.) Then ask: 1. What product or feature are you working on? 2. What design challenge are you facing right now? 3. How far along is this work — early exploration, active design, or fixing something in an existing product? Listen for clues about which layers have already been worked through and which are thin or missing. --- ### Layer audit Work through each layer with one or two targeted questions. Rate each as: **Strong** / **Partial** / **Assumed** / **Weak** / **Not started** / **N/A** **Observed behaviour** *"What user research do you have? Have you spoken to users, observed them, or have analytics? Or is this mostly based on what the team believes users do?"* **The domain** *"How well do you understand the space this product operates in — the real-world concepts, terminology, and how users think before your product enters the picture?"* **User needs** *"Can you articulate what users are trying to achieve — not in features, but the underlying job and why it matters? Do you have job stories or equivalent?"* **Product & service strategy** *"Do you know which specific user need this work targets and what business outcome it's meant to move? Is the connection between opportunity and business goal explicit, or informal?"* **Conceptual model** *"Does the product have a clear model of the objects it works with — the things that exist, how they connect, and what vocabulary you use? Is this shared across the team, or does each person have their own version?"* **Interaction structure and flow** *"Do you have a clear picture of the key user journeys — places, steps, decision points? A breadboard, rough flow, working code, or a description you can narrate?"* **Surface** *"Is there an existing design system, visual language, or component library this needs to fit into?"* --- ### Decision landscape Produce the audit as a table: ``` Layer | State | Notes ---------------------------|-------------|---------------------------------------- Observed behaviour | | The domain | | User needs | | Product & service strategy | | Conceptual model | | Interaction structure | | Surface | | ``` --- ### Bottleneck analysis Identify the **bottleneck layer**: the lowest layer with Weak, Assumed, or Not started state. State it clearly: what decisions are missing, and what risk does that create for the layers above? Also flag **assumed layers** — layers treated as decided but not verified. Assumptions that look solid are often where the most dangerous decisions hide. If the designer has a deadline or constraint that changes the calculus, acknowledge it. Sometimes the right move isn't the most foundational one — name that tradeoff explicitly rather than ignoring it. --- ### Recommendation Recommend a specific skill to run next and why: - Conceptual model → `/layers-conceptual-model` - Product strategy → `/layers-product-strategy` - User needs → `/layers-user-needs` - Domain → `/layers-domain` - Interaction structure → `/layers-interaction-flow` - Observed behaviour → `/layers-observed-behaviour` Close with: *"Want to run [skill] now, or is there something in this picture to push back on first?"*