Agent-almanac analyze-tensegrity-system

install

source · Clone the upstream repo

git clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac

Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/

T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/i18n/caveman/skills/analyze-tensegrity-system" ~/.claude/skills/pjt222-agent-almanac-analyze-tensegrity-system-3244b5 && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: i18n/caveman/skills/analyze-tensegrity-system/SKILL.md

source content

Analyze Tensegrity System

Analyze tensegrity (tensional integrity) system -- structure where isolated compression elements (struts) stabilized by continuous tension network (cables/tendons). Determine system's force balance, prestress equilibrium, structural stability, cross-scale coherence from molecular cytoskeleton to architectural form.

When Use

Evaluating whether structure exhibits true tensegrity (compression-tension separation) or is conventional frame
Analyzing structural stability of tensegrity design in architecture, robotics, or deployable structures
Applying Donald Ingber's cellular tensegrity model to cytoskeletal mechanics (microtubules, actin, intermediate filaments)
Assessing load capacity and failure modes of existing tensegrity system
Determining whether biological structure (cell, tissue, musculoskeletal system) can be modeled as tensegrity
Computing prestress requirements for tensegrity to achieve rigidity despite having more mechanisms than conventional truss

Inputs

Required: Description of system (physical structure, biological cell, architectural model, or robotic mechanism)
Required: Identification of candidate compression and tension elements
Optional: Material properties (Young's modulus, cross-section, length for each element)
Optional: External loads and boundary conditions
Optional: Scale of interest (molecular, cellular, tissue, architectural)
Optional: Known topology family (prism, octahedron, icosahedron, X-module)

Steps

Step 1: Characterize System

Establish complete physical description by identifying every compression element (strut) and tension element (cable), their connectivity, boundary conditions.

Compression inventory: List all struts -- rigid elements that resist compression. Record each strut's length, cross-section, material, Young's modulus. In biological systems, identify microtubules (hollow cylinders, ~25 nm outer diameter, 14 nm inner diameter, E ~ 1.2 GPa, persistence length ~ 5 mm).
Tension inventory: List all cables -- elements that resist tension only and go slack under compression. Record rest length, cross-sectional area, tensile stiffness. In biological systems: actin filaments (helical, ~7 nm diameter, E ~ 2.6 GPa, persistence length ~ 17 um) and intermediate filaments (IFs, ~10 nm diameter, highly extensible, strain-stiffening).
Connectivity topology: Document which struts connect to which cables at which nodes (joints). Construct incidence matrix C (rows = members, columns = nodes) encoding topology.
Boundary conditions: Identify fixed nodes (grounded joints), free nodes, external loads. Note gravitational loading direction and magnitude.
Scale identification: Classify as molecular (nm), cellular (um), architectural (m), or robotic (cm-m).

## System Characterization
| ID | Type  | Length   | Cross-section | Material       | Stiffness     |
|----|-------|----------|---------------|----------------|---------------|
| S1 | strut | [value]  | [value]       | [material]     | E = [value]   |
| C1 | cable | [value]  | [value]       | [material]     | EA = [value]  |
- **Nodes**: [count], [fixed vs. free]
- **Scale**: [molecular / cellular / architectural / robotic]
- **Boundary conditions**: [description]

Got: Complete inventory of all compression and tension elements with material properties, incidence matrix, boundary conditions sufficient to set up equilibrium equations.

If fail: Element properties unknown (common in biological systems)? Use published values: microtubules (E ~ 1.2 GPa, persistence length ~ 5 mm), actin (E ~ 2.6 GPa, persistence length ~ 17 um), intermediate filaments (highly nonlinear, strain-stiffening with low initial modulus ~1 MPa rising to ~1 GPa at high strain). Connectivity unclear? Reduce system to simplest topology that captures essential force paths.

Step 2: Classify Tensegrity Type

Determine what class of tensegrity system belongs to and whether biological or engineered.

Class determination:
- Class 1: Struts do not touch each other -- all struts isolated, connected only through tension network. Most Fuller/Snelson structures are class 1.
- Class 2: Struts may contact at shared nodes. Many biological systems are class 2 (microtubules share centrosome attachment points).
Topology identification: Count b = total members (struts + cables), j = nodes. Identify if topology matches known family: tensegrity prism (3-strut, 6-cable triangular antiprism), expanded octahedron (6-strut, 24-cable), icosahedral tensegrity (30-strut, 90-cable), or X-module (basic 2D unit cell).
Biological vs. engineered: Biological tensegrity has specific features: compression elements discrete and stiff (microtubules), tension network continuous (actin cortex + IFs), prestress generated actively (actomyosin contractility via ATP hydrolysis), system exhibits mechanotransduction (force-to-signal conversion). Document which features present.
Dimension: Classify as 2D (planar) or 3D.

## Tensegrity Classification
- **Class**: [1 (isolated struts) / 2 (strut-strut contact)]
- **Dimension**: [2D / 3D]
- **Topology**: [prism / octahedron / icosahedron / X-module / irregular]
- **Category**: [biological / architectural / robotic / artistic]
- **b** (members): [value], **j** (nodes): [value]

### Biological Tensegrity Mapping (if applicable)
| Cell Component          | Tensegrity Role       | Key Properties                              |
|-------------------------|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------|
| Microtubules            | Compression struts    | 25 nm OD, E~1.2 GPa, dynamic instability    |
| Actin filaments         | Tension cables        | 7 nm, cortical network, actomyosin contract. |
| Intermediate filaments  | Deep tension/prestress| 10 nm, strain-stiffening, nucleus-to-membrane|
| Extracellular matrix    | External anchor       | Collagen/fibronectin, integrin attachment     |
| Focal adhesions         | Ground nodes          | Mechanosensitive, connect cytoskeleton to ECM |
| Nucleus                 | Internal compression  | Lamina network forms sub-tensegrity           |

Got: Clear classification (class, dimension, category) with biological mapping table completed for biological systems. For engineered systems, topology family identified.

If fail: System does not cleanly fit class 1 or class 2? May be hybrid or conventional frame. True tensegrity requires that at least some elements work only in tension (cables that go slack under compression). No elements tension-only? System not tensegrity -- reclassify as conventional truss or frame and apply standard structural analysis.

Step 3: Analyze Force Balance and Prestress Equilibrium

Compute static equilibrium at every node. Determine state of prestress (internal tension/compression with no external load). Verify all cables remain in tension.

Construct equilibrium matrix: For b members and j nodes in d dimensions, build equilibrium matrix A (size dj x b). Each column encodes direction cosines of member's force contribution at its two end nodes. Equilibrium equation is A * t = f_ext, where t is vector of member force densities (force/length) and f_ext is external load vector.
Solve for self-stress: With f_ext = 0, find null space of A. Each basis vector of null(A) is state of self-stress -- internal forces satisfying equilibrium without external load. Number of independent self-stress states is s = b - rank(A).
Verify cable tension: In any valid tensegrity self-stress, all cables must have positive force density (tension) and all struts must have negative force density (compression). Self-stress that puts cable in compression not physically realizable (cable would go slack).
Compute prestress level: Actual prestress is linear combination of self-stress basis vectors chosen so all cable tensions positive. Record minimum cable tension t_min (margin before any cable goes slack).
Load capacity: Add external loads and solve A * t = f_ext. Load at which first cable tension reaches zero is critical load F_crit.

## Prestress Equilibrium
- **Equilibrium matrix A**: [dj] x [b] = [size]
- **Rank of A**: [value]
- **Self-stress states (s)**: s = b - rank(A) = [value]
- **Self-stress feasibility**: [all cables in tension? Yes/No]
- **Minimum cable tension**: t_min = [value]
- **Critical external load**: F_crit = [value]

| Member | Type  | Force Density | Force   | Status      |
|--------|-------|---------------|---------|-------------|
| S1     | strut | [negative]    | [value] | compression |
| C1     | cable | [positive]    | [value] | tension     |

Got: Self-stress states computed. Physically realizable prestress (all cables in tension, all struts in compression) found. Load capacity estimated.

If fail: No self-stress state keeps all cables in tension? Topology does not support tensegrity prestress. Either (a) incidence matrix has errors, (b) system needs additional cables, or (c) it is mechanism rather than tensegrity. For large systems, use force density method (Schek, 1974) or numerical null-space computation rather than hand calculation.

Step 4: Check Stability Using Maxwell's Criterion

Determine whether tensegrity rigid (stable against infinitesimal perturbations) or mechanism (has zero-energy deformation modes).

Apply extended Maxwell rule: For pin-jointed framework in d dimensions with b bars, j nodes, k kinematic constraints (supports), s self-stress states, and m infinitesimal mechanisms:

b - dj + k + s = m

Relates bars, joints, constraints to balance between self-stress and mechanism states.
Compute from equilibrium matrix: rank(A) = b - s. Number of mechanisms is m = dj - k - rank(A). m = 0? Structure first-order rigid. m > 0? Prestress stability must be checked.
Prestress stability test: For each mechanism mode q, compute second-order energy E_2 = q^T * G * q, where G is geometric stiffness matrix (stress matrix). E_2 > 0 for all mechanism modes? Tensegrity prestress-stable (Connelly and Whiteley, 1996). How tensegrity achieves rigidity -- not through bar count, but through prestress stabilization of mechanisms.
Classify rigidity:
- Kinematically determinate: m = 0, s = 0 (rare for tensegrity)
- Statically indeterminate and rigid: m = 0, s > 0
- Prestress-stable: m > 0, but all mechanisms stabilized by prestress
- Mechanism: m > 0, not stabilized (structure can deform)

## Stability Analysis (Maxwell's Criterion)
- **Bars (b)**: [value]
- **Joints (j)**: [value]
- **Dimension (d)**: [2 or 3]
- **Kinematic constraints (k)**: [value]
- **Rank of A**: [value]
- **Self-stress states (s)**: [value]
- **Mechanisms (m)**: [value]
- **Maxwell check**: b - dj + k + s = m --> [values]
- **Prestress stability**: [stable / unstable / N/A]
- **Rigidity class**: [determinate / indeterminate / prestress-stable / mechanism]

Got: Maxwell count performed. Mechanisms determined. For m > 0, prestress stability evaluated. Structure classified as rigid, prestress-stable, or mechanism.

If fail: Structure is mechanism (m > 0 and not prestress-stable)? Options: (a) add cables to increase b and reduce m, (b) increase prestress, (c) modify topology. In biological systems, active actomyosin contractility continuously adjusts prestress to maintain stability -- cell is self-tuning tensegrity.

Step 5: Map Biological Tensegrity (Cross-Scale Analysis)

If system has biological interpretation, map analysis to Ingber's cellular tensegrity model and check cross-scale coherence. Skip this step for purely engineered systems.

Molecular scale (nm): Identify protein filaments as tensegrity elements. Microtubules (alpha/beta-tubulin heterodimers, GTP-dependent polymerization, dynamic instability with catastrophe/rescue). Actin (G-actin → F-actin polymerization, treadmilling). Intermediate filaments (type-dependent: vimentin, keratin, desmin, nuclear lamins).
Cellular scale (um): Map whole-cell tensegrity. Actin cortex = continuous tension shell. Microtubules radiating from centrosome = compression struts bearing against cortex. IFs = secondary tension path connecting nucleus to focal adhesions. Actomyosin contractility (myosin II motor proteins) = active prestress generator.
Tissue scale (mm-cm): Cells form higher-order tensegrity. Each cell acts as compression-bearing element, connected by continuous ECM tension network (collagen, elastin). Cell-cell junctions (cadherins) and cell-ECM junctions (integrins) serve as nodes.
Cross-scale coherence: Verify perturbation at one scale propagates to others. External force at ECM transmits through integrins to cytoskeleton to nucleus -- this mechanotransduction pathway is signature of cross-scale tensegrity.

## Cross-Scale Biological Tensegrity
| Scale      | Compression        | Tension              | Prestress Source      | Nodes              |
|------------|--------------------|----------------------|-----------------------|--------------------|
| Molecular  | Tubulin dimers     | Actin/IF subunits    | ATP/GTP hydrolysis    | Protein complexes  |
| Cellular   | Microtubules       | Actin cortex + IFs   | Actomyosin            | Focal adhesions    |
| Tissue     | Cells (turgor)     | ECM (collagen)       | Cell contractility    | Cell-ECM junctions |
| Organ      | Bones              | Muscles + fascia     | Muscle tone           | Joints             |

### Mechanotransduction Pathway
ECM --> integrin --> focal adhesion --> actin cortex --> IF --> nuclear lamina --> chromatin

Got: Biological tensegrity mapped at each relevant scale with compression, tension, prestress source, nodes identified. Cross-scale force transmission documented.

If fail: Cross-scale mapping breaks (no clear tension continuity between scales)? Document gap. Not all biological structures are tensegrity at all scales. Spine is tensegrity at musculoskeletal level (bones=struts, muscles/fascia=cables) but individual vertebrae are conventional compression structures internally.

Step 6: Synthesize Analysis and Assess Structural Integrity

Combine all preceding analyses into final assessment of system's tensional integrity.

Force balance summary: State whether prestress equilibrium achieved, rigidity classification, load capacity margin.
Vulnerability analysis: Identify critical member -- cable whose failure causes greatest loss of integrity (highest force density relative to strength), strut whose buckling would cause collapse (check against Euler buckling: P_cr = pi^2 * EI / L^2).
Redundancy assessment: How many cables can be removed before s drops to 0? How many before system becomes unstabilized mechanism?
Design recommendations (engineered systems): Cable pretension levels, strut sizing, topology modifications for improved margins.
Biological implications (biological systems): Relate to pathophysiology -- reduced microtubule stability (colchicine/taxol), disrupted IF networks (laminopathies), altered prestress (cancer cell mechanics with increased contractility).
Integrity rating:
- ROBUST: s >= 2, all cables well above slack threshold, critical member failure does not cause collapse
- MARGINAL: s = 1 or minimum cable tension near zero under expected loads
- FRAGILE: s = 0, or critical member failure causes system collapse

## Structural Integrity Assessment
- **Prestress equilibrium**: [achieved / not achieved]
- **Rigidity**: [determinate / indeterminate / prestress-stable / mechanism]
- **Load capacity margin**: [value or qualitative]
- **Critical member**: [ID] -- failure causes [consequence]
- **Redundancy**: [cables removable before mechanism]
- **Integrity rating**: [ROBUST / MARGINAL / FRAGILE]

### Recommendations
1. [specific recommendation]
2. [specific recommendation]
3. [specific recommendation]

Got: Complete structural integrity assessment with rigidity classification, vulnerability identification, redundancy analysis, integrity rating (ROBUST/MARGINAL/FRAGILE) with actionable recommendations.

If fail: Analysis incomplete (equilibrium matrix too large, biological parameters unknown)? State assessment as conditional: "MARGINAL pending numerical verification" or "classification requires experimental measurement of prestress level." Partial assessment with explicit gaps more valuable than no assessment.

Checks

Pitfalls

Confusing tensegrity with conventional trusses: Tensegrity requires that some elements work only in tension (they go slack under compression). All elements can bear both tension and compression? Conventional frame, not tensegrity. One-way nature of cables creates nonlinearity that requires prestress for stability.
Ignoring prestress in stability analysis: Unstressed tensegrity always mechanism -- cables at rest length provide no stiffness. Maxwell's count alone often yields m > 0 for tensegrity, suggesting instability. Prestress stability check (Step 4) essential: prestress is what makes tensegrity rigid.
Treating biological tensegrity as static: Cellular tensegrity actively maintained by ATP-dependent myosin II motors generating contractility on actin. Prestress dynamic, not fixed. Static analysis captures structural principle but misses active regulation. Always note whether prestress passive (cable pretension) or active (motor-generated).
Applying Maxwell's rule without accounting for cable slackening: Maxwell's rule assumes all members active. External loads causing cables to go slack reduce effective b, changing stability calculation. Track which cables remain taut under each load case.
Conflating Snelson's sculptures with Ingber's cell model: Snelson's artistic tensegrities use rigid metal struts and steel cables. Ingber's cellular tensegrity features viscoelastic elements, active regulation, dynamic instability of compression elements (microtubule catastrophe). Structural principle same; material behavior fundamentally different.
Neglecting strut buckling: Tensegrity analysis treats struts as rigid. Slender struts can buckle (Euler: P_cr = pi^2 * EI / L^2). Compressive force approaches buckling load? Rigid-strut assumption fails. Actual load capacity lower than predicted.