# Assembly > Use this skill to assemble a realm — the central ritual of the 時-cycle: discern the pattern over a whole field of inquiry and activity and produce 形, the assembly map. Triggers: 'собери реалм', 'сборка', 'пересборка', 'что здесь происходит по сути', 'повестка', 'состояние реалма целиком', 'assemble the realm', 'what's really going on here', 'reassemble', 'map the transformations'. Also use when entry/orient shows a large ungrouped field — many free vimarshas, a wall of top-level kriyas. Distinct from weaving (semantic repair of existing structure), design (building paths from goals), and inquiry (the per-vimarsha lifecycle work). Needs the nks_* MCP tools, especially nks_add_bianhua and lens="bianhua". - Skill: `verstak-ai/assembly` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add verstak-ai/assembly` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/verstak-ai/assembly/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: verstak-ai (https://skillmd.com/u/verstak-ai) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/verstak-ai/assembly --- # NKS Assembly **Assembly** is the work here. A mature realm accumulates experience *flat*: a wall of top-level kriyas, a field of free-floating vimarshas, because the umbrellas that would organise them are only visible *retrospectively* — in an assembly that never happened. Your job is that assembly: stand over the whole field, discern the **bianhua** (变化) the system is undergoing, and produce **形** — the map a navigator acts from. Design *creates* structure from goals. Weaving *repairs* structure that exists. Assembly *discerns the pattern* over the field and makes it a map. ## The 時-cycle Assembly is the expensive 行-ritual of a recurring cycle, not a one-off: ``` 行 ritual — provocation → discernment → seed-form → visible artefact (形) 德 the artefact stands; work leans on it 忠 light updates between rituals (patch, not rewrite) 忘 the artefact goes stale; release it 元→意 reassembly — cheaper than the first: recipe (optics) + basis (nodes+versions) replay ``` You produce and refresh 形. You do **not** decide *when* to reassemble — that is the call of the Мыслепрактик (the thought-practitioner — the realm's owner; see Roles). ## Roles — know your boundary | Role | Motivation | In assembly | |---|---|---| | **Мыслепрактик** | "not to drown, to see the whole" | Holds transcendent will. Provokes assembly, validates 形, decides when to reassemble. The only one who says *why*, *"yes, it grasps it"*, *"the map lies"*, *"again"*. | | **Сборщик** (the motivation you serve) | discern the pattern, produce 形 | See the field, apply the seed-form, draw 形. **Do not** decide when to reassemble; **do not** make transcendent-will calls (refusal, priority, otherwise). | | **Штурман** (navigator) | "where do I apply effort right now" | Reads 形, picks a focus, enters the graph via orient, works, returns feedback. | | **Координатор** (coordinator) | "synchronise people" | 形 as the shared language: "who moves which bianhua?" | **Сборщик, Штурман and Координатор are motivations of the Мыслепрактик, not roles standing opposite them** — they shift inside one person's session. You are none of them; you perform the kriya under whichever is live. The boundary is carried by the *act*, not by a role name: naming a bianhua's telos is a separate kriya with a different actor — you propose, the owner accepts. When a decision carries **transcendent will** — a refusal, a priority, a choosing-otherwise — it is not yours. Name it and carry it to the Мыслепрактик's agenda. Don't resolve it to keep the ritual moving. ## 形 has two halves 形 is built from **bianhua** — qualitative transformations of the system (cross-holon, fractal, carrying a *telos*: "what the system becomes"). Two halves: - **anagata half — where we're going.** bianhua compress the *field of inquiry*: a wall of vimarshas becomes a map of the transformations actually underway. anga inward (what drives each — vimarshas carry the *path*, kriyas carry the *arrival*: deeds entering the fabric (возведение) or leaving it (депрекация), direction read from each kriya's triputi), anantara between (ordering / critical path). - **vartamana half — what's happening.** composite kriyas compress the *field of activity*: top-level kriyas folded under umbrellas that name "what is really going on here". The terminal element of the fractal is always a **vimarsha** — a question calling to thought or practice. ## The protocol ### 1. Orient the whole field ``` nks_orient(realm=) → overview: ACTIVE BIANHUA, vimarshas, top-level kriyas, tensions nks_orient(realm=, lens="bianhua") → forest of transformations (ready / blocked / done) nks_orient(realm=, lens="vimarshas", focus=) → the field of inquiry, grouped nks_orient(realm=, lens="tensions", verbose=true) → structural health + address-class signals ``` Read the field by *content*, not by labels (the pilot failure: the agent worked from etiquettes). Use `nks_orient(lens="vimarshas")` grouping — scan → group → zoom → name — and `nks_search(anga_of=)` to see what already drives a bianhua — it surfaces kriya-carriers (deeds) alongside the vimarsha-drivers. ### 2. Triage the field of inquiry Every **active, free** vimarsha (not yet anga of any bianhua) gets exactly one fate: **anga** to the transformation its resolution drives, **supersede**, **close**, or **consciously left free**. The moves themselves — how each genre resolves, the three lifecycle outcomes, park vs close — are the **inquiry** skill's; use it for every per-vimarsha act. Assembly adds only the field-level rules: try the **existing** forest first (unsure which transformation a vimarsha drives — ask the user, never guess and never spawn a bianhua for it), and an anga-attached vimarsha keeps its own `vimarsha_of`. ### 3. Population inspection of activity → composites Look at `top-level(scope)` kriyas — "what is really going on here". A wall of them is sediment, not health. - Find candidate clusters: estafeta-connected + semantically near. (A background clustering agent is the intended source; until it exists, cluster by reading + `nks_semantic_search`.) - **Naming a composite is expensive** — an act of pattern-discernment (理), reserved for a human or strong agent: clustering is cheap, the *name* is dear. An umbrella kriya must be a real kriya with its own pariṇāma that absorbs its children — folder-thinking is forbidden. When you cannot honestly name "what is really going on here", leave it and put the cluster on the agenda — **a wrong parent is worse than none.** - When you *can* name it: create the umbrella kriya and re-parent children via `contains` (or `parent_id` on `nks_add_kriya`). ### 4. Agenda of address-tensions → the human `address`-class tensions (e.g. unresolved risks — `lens="tensions"` shows them) carry **transcendent will**: refusal, priority, choosing-otherwise. They are **not** the agent's to resolve. Collect them as an agenda and bring them to the Мыслепрактик. (The dedicated assembly-agenda export is staged tooling — until it ships, read them from `lens="tensions"` and list them by hand.) ### 5. Produce 形 — and arrive at understanding **Bianhua is the owner's interface.** Vimarshas are the agent's working units; bianhua are what the Мыслепрактик orients by — the large blocks for judging the possible, the necessary, priorities, what to defer or accelerate. Hence the creation discipline: - **Never create a bianhua for a single vimarsha.** One question is not a transformation. Locate first: `lens="bianhua"` (the forest) + `nks_semantic_search(node_type="bianhua", q=)` → attach via anga to the transformation it drives. No confident fit → **ask the user** (AskUserQuestion) instead of spawning one. - **Name and telos are the owner's acceptance surface** — essentially the only thing the user must accept in the graph. The name must read for the user (no engineering shorthand the owner wouldn't recognise); the telos is *verified by them*. Interactively — propose name + telos and get the nod before creating; autonomously — carry the candidate to the agenda, don't create spontaneously. Assemble the map: - **Create / refresh bianhua** for each transformation the field reveals: `nks_add_bianhua(name, telos, anga=, anantara_after=)`. Write `telos` as the *destination quality* ("the system becomes …"), never "what this is". A bianhua with no anga-vimarsha is an *empty transformation* — the factory warns; either attach drivers or don't create it. - **Run the integrity pass on each newly accepted bianhua** (**integrity** skill): propagate the telos through the graph's closures and mark the wavefront of affected-but-unattached nodes with «is this affected?» samshayas anga'd to the transformation. - **Order them** with `anantara` (B possible only after A) — that is the critical path of the assembly. - **Fix bildung-realizations.** A session must arrive at *understandings*, not only spawn new vimarshas (shared with the inquiry skill). When the assembly reveals something — record it as a `given_as=bildung` phenomenon (a forming pattern) with `arose_from` to its origin. No bildung output ⇒ the assembly didn't land. ### 6. Impulse to the navigator The Штурман acts from a *ready* map. Surface the bianhua that are unblocked by `anantara` (nothing prerequisite still open) — `nks_orient(lens="bianhua")` already sorts ready / blocked / done. That ordered set of ready transformations *is* the impulse: "these are the transformations you can move now." ## Acceptance - Triggers on assembly phrasing ("собери реалм", "что тут по сути происходит", "повестка"). - A pilot assembly of a real realm runs end-to-end: orient → field triaged → composites named-or-agenda'd → 形 (bianhua map) produced → impulse surfaced. - **Vimarshas do not multiply without a bildung output** — the session converges to understanding, not to a longer list of questions. ## What assembly is NOT - **Not weaving.** Weaving closes a leaked estafeta or writes sense on an arrow — node-grained repair. Assembly is the field-level pass: the pattern over many nodes. - **Not design.** Design chains kriyas from a goal. Assembly maps transformations already underway. - **Not deciding to reassemble.** That is the Мыслепрактик's transcendent-will call. - **Not silencing the wall.** A population pattern (too many top-level kriyas) is not a tension to suppress with attrs — it is material for the agenda.