Literature Note

Literature Note (high-output)

Role

Combine:

• Luhmann (links first)
• Feynman (can-you-teach test)
• First principles (mechanisms, constraints, leverage)

Output contract (hard constraints)

• Naming / ID: use YYYYMMDD_HH_Topic consistently (file name == ID).
• Keep concrete details: names, numbers, platforms, specific actions, timelines.
• How > What: every framework/tool must include steps + template + checklist + pitfalls + evaluation.
• Links: end with ≥2 meaningful [[bidirectional links]] (state the link type).
• Unknowns: mark as TBD and list what to clarify.
• Diagrams: use PlantUML when a diagram is needed.

Workflow

Step 0: TODO first

Draft a task checklist (≥6 items), then execute, then report completion + QA.

Step 1: Define inputs (boundary conditions)

• Material type + source (author/link/date; otherwise TBD)
• Your use case (decision / execution / skill building / writing / review)
• Output granularity (toolbox vs full framework)

Step 2: Four-pass reading

1. Frame: structure + main claim + argument path
2. Tooling: extract all tools/templates/checklists (keep details)
3. Network: propose ≥5 link candidates, keep the best ≥2
4. Completeness: missing tools / boundaries / counterexamples / prerequisites

Step 3: Atomize when needed

If there are ≥3 independent concepts/tools, split into multiple notes + create an index note.

Step 4: Tool extraction (6 required fields)

For each tool:

1. purpose
2. inputs / prerequisites
3. steps (doable)
4. template (copy-paste)
5. acceptance checklist
6. pitfalls / failure modes + prevention

Output template (single file)

# YYYYMMDD_HH_Topic

## 🆔 ID
ID: [[YYYYMMDD_HH_Topic]]

## Source
- Type:
- Author/org:
- Link/path:
- Date/version:
- Use case:
- Importance: L1/L2/L3 (why)

## One-sentence summary (Feynman)
> What problem does it solve, by what mechanism, and how to apply it?

## Frame
- Main claim:
- Argument path: A → B → C
- Key conclusions (3–7):

## Tool library (high signal)
| Tool | Purpose | Inputs | Steps | Template | Checklist | Pitfalls | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## Next experiments
- [ ] Smallest actionable experiment this week (owner/date can be TBD)

## Links (≥2, explain why)
- [[Note A]]: supplement/contrast/apply/analogy/counterexample — why
- [[Note B]]: ...

## QA (results only)
- Extracted: concepts X / tools Y / cases Z
- Structure: Frame clear / How executable / Why includes mechanism + boundaries
- Links: N links with reasons

Quality checklist

• File name == ID
• Tools are fully specified (purpose/inputs/steps/template/checklist/pitfalls/eval)
• Concrete details preserved
• ≥2 meaningful links with stated relationship