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 "$T/i18n/caveman-ultra/skills/analyze-tensegrity-system" ~/.claude/skills/pjt222-agent-almanac-analyze-tensegrity-system-724266 && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: i18n/caveman-ultra/skills/analyze-tensegrity-system/SKILL.md
source content

Analyze Tensegrity System

Tensegrity = isolated compression (struts) stabilized by continuous tension (cables). Determine force balance, prestress equilibrium, stability, cross-scale coherence molecular → architectural.

Use When

  • True tensegrity (compression-tension separation) vs conventional frame?
  • Structural stability of design architecture/robotics/deployable
  • Apply Ingber's cellular tensegrity model → cytoskeletal mechanics (microtubules, actin, IFs)
  • Load capacity + failure modes existing system
  • Bio structure (cell, tissue, musculoskel) modelable as tensegrity?
  • Prestress reqs → rigidity despite more mechanisms than conventional truss

In

  • Required: System desc (physical, bio cell, architectural, robotic)
  • Required: ID candidate compression + tension elements
  • Optional: Material props (Young's mod, cross-section, length per element)
  • Optional: External loads + boundary conds
  • Optional: Scale (molecular, cellular, tissue, architectural)
  • Optional: Known topology family (prism, octahedron, icosahedron, X-module)

Do

Step 1: Characterize System

ID every compression element (strut) + tension element (cable), connectivity, boundary conds.

  1. Compression inventory: Struts — rigid elements resist compression. Length, cross-section, material, Young's mod. Bio → microtubules (hollow cyl, ~25 nm OD, 14 nm ID, E ~ 1.2 GPa, persistence length ~ 5 mm).
  2. Tension inventory: Cables — resist tension only, slack under compression. Rest length, cross-section area, tensile stiffness. Bio → actin filaments (helical, ~7 nm, E ~ 2.6 GPa, persistence length ~ 17 um) + IFs (~10 nm, highly extensible, strain-stiffening).
  3. Connectivity topology: Doc struts ↔ cables ↔ nodes. Incidence matrix C (rows = members, cols = nodes) encodes topology.
  4. Boundary conds: Fixed nodes (grounded), free nodes, external loads. Gravitational loading direction + magnitude.
  5. Scale: Molecular (nm), cellular (um), architectural (m), 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]

Complete inventory compression + tension elements + material props + incidence matrix + boundary conds → setup equilibrium eqs.

If err: Props unknown (common bio) → published: microtubules (E ~ 1.2 GPa, persistence ~ 5 mm), actin (E ~ 2.6 GPa, persistence ~ 17 um), IFs (nonlinear strain-stiffening, initial ~1 MPa → ~1 GPa high strain). Connectivity unclear → simplest topology capturing essential force paths.

Step 2: Classify Type

Class + bio vs engineered:

  1. Class:
    • Class 1: Struts don't touch — all isolated, connected only via tension. Most Fuller/Snelson class 1.
    • Class 2: Struts may contact shared nodes. Many bio class 2 (microtubules share centrosome).
  2. Topology: b = total (struts + cables), j = nodes. Known family: tensegrity prism (3-strut, 6-cable triangular antiprism), expanded octahedron (6-strut, 24-cable), icosahedral (30-strut, 90-cable), X-module (basic 2D unit).
  3. Bio vs engineered: Bio — compression discrete + stiff (microtubules), tension continuous (actin cortex + IFs), prestress actively generated (actomyosin contractility via ATP), mechanotransduction (force→signal). Doc which features present.
  4. Dim: 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           |

Clear classification (class, dim, category) + bio mapping table for bio systems. Engineered → topology family ID'd.

If err: Not cleanly class 1 or 2 → hybrid or conventional frame. True tensegrity reqs ≥ some elements tension-only (cables slack under compression). No tension-only → not tensegrity — reclassify conventional truss/frame + std structural analysis.

Step 3: Force Balance + Prestress Equilibrium

Compute static equilibrium each node, prestress (internal tension/compression no external load), verify all cables in tension.

  1. Equilibrium matrix: b members, j nodes, d dims → build A (size dj x b). Col encodes direction cosines of member's force at 2 end nodes. Equilibrium: A * t = f_ext, t = vector of force densities (force/length), f_ext = external load.
  2. Solve self-stress: f_ext = 0 → null space A. Each basis vec of null(A) = self-stress state — internal forces satisfy equilibrium no external. Independent self-stresses s = b - rank(A).
  3. Verify cable tension: Valid tensegrity self-stress → all cables pos force density (tension) + all struts neg (compression). Self-stress puts cable in compression → not physically realizable (would slack).
  4. Compute prestress level: Actual = linear combo self-stress basis chosen so all cable tensions pos. Record min cable tension t_min (margin before slack).
  5. Load capacity: Add external loads + solve A * t = f_ext. Load at which first cable tension reaches 0 = critical 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     |

Self-stress states computed, physically realizable prestress (all cables tension, all struts compression) found, load capacity est.

If err: No self-stress keeps all cables in tension → topology no support tensegrity prestress. (a) incidence matrix errs, (b) needs more cables, or (c) mechanism not tensegrity. Large systems → force density method (Schek, 1974) or numerical null-space.

Step 4: Maxwell's Stability Criterion

Rigid (stable vs infinitesimal perturbations) or mechanism (zero-energy modes)?

  1. Extended Maxwell rule: Pin-jointed framework d dims, b bars, j nodes, k kinematic constraints (supports), s self-stresses, m infinitesimal mechanisms:

    b - dj + k + s = m

    Relates bars/joints/constraints to self-stress + mechanism balance.

  2. Compute from equilibrium matrix: rank(A) = b - s. Mechanisms m = dj - k - rank(A). m = 0 → first-order rigid. m > 0 → prestress stability check.

  3. Prestress stability test: Per mechanism mode q, compute 2nd-order energy E_2 = q^T * G * q, G = geometric stiffness matrix (stress matrix). E_2 > 0 all modes → prestress-stable (Connelly + Whiteley, 1996). Tensegrity achieves rigidity not via bar count but prestress stabilization of mechanisms.

  4. Classify rigidity:

    • Kinematically determinate: m = 0, s = 0 (rare for tensegrity)
    • Statically indeterminate + rigid: m = 0, s > 0
    • Prestress-stable: m > 0, all mechanisms stabilized by prestress
    • Mechanism: m > 0, not stabilized (structure deforms)
## 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]

Maxwell count done, mechanisms determined, m > 0 → prestress stability eval'd. Structure classified rigid/prestress-stable/mechanism.

If err: Mechanism (m > 0 + not prestress-stable) → options: (a) add cables → increase b + reduce m, (b) increase prestress, (c) modify topology. Bio → active actomyosin continuously adjusts prestress → self-tuning tensegrity.

Step 5: Bio Tensegrity (Cross-Scale)

If bio → map to Ingber's model + check cross-scale coherence. Skip for engineered-only.

  1. Molecular (nm): Proteins as tensegrity elements. Microtubules (alpha/beta-tubulin heterodimers, GTP-dependent polymerization, dynamic instability w/ catastrophe/rescue). Actin (G-actin → F-actin polymerization, treadmilling). IFs (type-dependent: vimentin, keratin, desmin, nuclear lamins).
  2. Cellular (um): Whole-cell tensegrity. Actin cortex = continuous tension shell. Microtubules radiating from centrosome = compression struts vs cortex. IFs = secondary tension path, nucleus ↔ focal adhesions. Actomyosin contractility (myosin II) = active prestress generator.
  3. Tissue (mm-cm): Cells form higher-order tensegrity. Each cell = compression-bearing element, connected via continuous ECM tension (collagen, elastin). Cell-cell junctions (cadherins) + cell-ECM (integrins) = nodes.
  4. Cross-scale coherence: Perturbation at 1 scale propagates others. External force at ECM → via integrins → cytoskel → nucleus → mechanotransduction = 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

Bio tensegrity mapped each scale + compression + tension + prestress src + nodes ID'd. Cross-scale force transmission documented.

If err: Cross-scale mapping breaks (no tension continuity) → doc gap. Not all bio tensegrity at all scales. Spine = tensegrity musculoskeletal (bones=struts, muscles/fascia=cables) but individual vertebrae are conventional compression internally.

Step 6: Synthesize + Assess Integrity

Combine preceding into final assessment:

  1. Force balance summary: Prestress equilibrium achieved? Rigidity class + load capacity margin.
  2. Vulnerability: Critical member — cable whose failure → greatest loss (highest force density rel strength), strut whose buckling → collapse (Euler: P_cr = pi^2 * EI / L^2).
  3. Redundancy: How many cables removable before s → 0? Before system unstabilized mechanism?
  4. Design recs (engineered): Cable pretension, strut sizing, topology mods for improved margins.
  5. Bio implications (bio): Pathophysiology — reduced microtubule stability (colchicine/taxol), disrupted IF networks (laminopathies), altered prestress (cancer cell mechanics w/ increased contractility).
  6. Integrity rating:
    • ROBUST: s >= 2, all cables well above slack, critical member failure no collapse
    • MARGINAL: s = 1 or min cable tension near 0 under expected loads
    • FRAGILE: s = 0, or critical member failure → 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]

Complete structural integrity assessment + rigidity + vulnerability + redundancy + rating (ROBUST/MARGINAL/FRAGILE) + actionable recs.

If err: Incomplete (matrix too large, bio params unknown) → state conditional: "MARGINAL pending numerical verification" or "classification reqs experimental measurement". Partial + explicit gaps > no assessment.

Check

  • All compression (struts) + tension (cables) inventoried + props
  • Connectivity topology documented (incidence matrix or equivalent)
  • Tensegrity class (1 or 2) determined based on strut contact
  • Equilibrium matrix constructed + rank computed
  • ≥1 self-stress state found + all cables tension
  • Maxwell's extended rule applied: b - dj + k + s = m
  • Infinitesimal mechanisms checked prestress stability
  • Rigidity class assigned
  • Bio → cross-scale mapping table done
  • Integrity rated ROBUST/MARGINAL/FRAGILE + justification

Traps

  • Confuse tensegrity w/ conventional trusses: Tensegrity reqs ≥ some tension-only elements (slack under compression). All elements both tension + compression → conventional frame not tensegrity. One-way nature of cables → nonlinearity → prestress for stability.
  • Ignore prestress in stability: Unstressed tensegrity always mechanism — cables at rest length = no stiffness. Maxwell count alone often m > 0 → suggests instability. Prestress stability check (Step 4) essential.
  • Treat bio tensegrity static: Cellular actively maintained by ATP-dependent myosin II on actin. Prestress dynamic not fixed. Static captures structural principle misses active regulation. Always note passive (pretension) or active (motor-generated).
  • Maxwell no cable slackening: Maxwell assumes all members active. External loads cause cables slack → reduce effective b → changes stability calc. Track which cables taut per load case.
  • Conflate Snelson's sculptures w/ Ingber's cell: Snelson rigid metal struts + steel cables. Ingber viscoelastic + active regulation + dynamic instability compression (microtubule catastrophe). Structural principle same; material behavior fundamentally different.
  • Neglect strut buckling: 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.

  • assess-form
    — structural inventory + transformation readiness; generic, this applies specific tensegrity framework
  • adapt-architecture
    — architectural metamorphosis; tensegrity analysis IDs tension continuity for safe mods during transform
  • repair-damage
    — regenerative recovery; cable failure + strut failure diff consequences, critical member analysis (Step 6) informs priority
  • center
    — dynamic reasoning balance; stability through balanced tension (not rigid compression) = structural metaphor for centering
  • integrate-gestalt
    — tension-resonance mapping mirrors compression-tension duality; both find coherence through productive interplay of opposing forces
  • analyze-magnetic-levitation
    — sister analysis shares rigor pattern (characterize, classify, verify stability); lev contactless force balance, tensegrity contact-based force balance via tension continuity
  • construct-geometric-figure
    — geometric construction of tensegrity nodes; figure → initial topology, tensegrity analysis verifies stability