T shaped connector
Open-source thinking-framework skills that make rigorous reasoning executable for AI agents — first-principles, inversion, second-order thinking, Occam's razor, Bayesian reasoning. Built by deciqAI.
npx -y skills add deciqAI/knowledge-skills --skill t-shaped-connectorAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Activate when: someone says 'I'm T-shaped' and you want to verify it; a team can't translate insights across functions; a person asks what career move creates the most leverage; building a first startup team; a domain expert is hitting a ceiling and considering broadening. Do NOT activate when: the role requires pure depth with no cross-domain translation value; the team is tightly integrated with no structural holes to fill. More: deciqai.com/s/t-shaped-connector
SKILL.md
9.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
T-Shaped Connector
Overview
The T-shaped metaphor (deep vertical + broad horizontal) is widely used but rarely validated. Most self-described T-shapes are flat generalists — wide but lacking genuine top-20% depth in any single domain. The distinction determines whether a person can occupy a connector position: a structural hole between domains where information arbitrage creates disproportionate value. A true connector translates domain-A insights for domain-B practitioners in terms those practitioners find both novel and credible.
Compose with first-principles (verify vertical depth is real), pareto-principle (rank horizontal domains by arbitrage leverage), and deep-work (protect the vertical from horizontal erosion).
When to Use
Concrete triggers: evaluating a "T-shaped" hire for innovation/strategy roles; a team with strong specialists who can't translate across functions; career design question about leverage from existing expertise; building a first 3–5-person startup team; domain expert hitting a ceiling and considering broadening.
When NOT to use: pure-depth roles (senior research, specialized legal/medical); small tightly integrated teams with no structural holes; senior ICs whose value is defined by depth not translation (use circle-of-competence); time horizon under 12 months.
Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)
- Engine mode: user has a concrete case and clear vertical depth → run The Process directly from Step 4.
- Coach mode: user is unfamiliar or has no mapped domains → guide step by step.
In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.
- One-liner: the T-shape only creates leverage when there is a real structural hole AND genuine top-20% vertical depth. Without both, it's generalism.
- Check fit against When to Use / When NOT to use.
- Audit the vertical: "In which single domain could you be confidently top 20% among global practitioners?"
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
- Map horizontal domains and run the connector test — score novelty and credibility both ≥4/5 with a real domain-B practitioner.
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
- Name the structural hole they occupy and design the 90-day occupation + protection plan.
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
The Process
Stop-rule: If practitioner already has clear vertical depth and one mapped adjacent domain, start at Step 4. If connector test fails, return to Step 2.
Step 1 — Map your vertical. Apply the top-20% test using 3 objective proxies (peer recognition, contribution record, ability to evaluate others' work, ability to solve novel problems). Gate: if you cannot clear top-20%, start with vertical deepening.
Step 2 — Map your horizontal. List adjacent domains with credible fluency. Apply the Pareto filter: which 20% of horizontal domains provide 80% of connector leverage? Rank by (a) distance from vertical and (b) presence of structural holes.
Step 3 — Identify the intersection gap. Name the specific structural hole: where do domain-A and domain-B practitioners fail to communicate, and what problem does that create? Gate: if you cannot name 2 real instances of communication failure, the hole may be theoretical.
Step 4 — Run the connector test. Translate a specific domain-A insight into domain-B terms. Test with a real domain-B practitioner. Score: (a) novelty 1–5, (b) credibility 1–5. Gate: ≥4 on both = connector position validated. ≤3 on either = return to Step 2.
Step 5 — Occupy and protect the position. Design (a) an occupation protocol (talks, papers, cross-functional projects) and (b) a protection protocol (minimum deep-work hours/week in primary domain + tripwire for vertical erosion).
Output: Connector Position Map
Fields: Practitioner / Role / Vertical bar (domain + top-20% evidence + depth rating 1–5) / Horizontal bar (adjacent domains + Pareto-selected primary + evidence of credible translation) / Structural hole (gap description + 2 real instances of failure + problem created) / Connector test result (insight translated + novelty 1–5 + credibility 1–5 + position validated Y/N) / Investment plan 90 days (priority + observable output) / Protection protocol (deep-work hours/week + tripwire).
→ Method in Action: Claude Shannon's Deliberate T-Shape Construction at Bell Labs (1940s)
Connector Domain Packs
- Engineering × Biology: synthetic biology, computational genomics, bio-inspired computing
- Finance × Product: product monetization strategy, unit economics translation, growth model design
- Contribute a pack: submit a PR with your domain pair and a validated connector test example.
Applying It Well
- Build the vertical before the horizontal — credibility requires the vertical to be real.
- The connector test is the only valid gate — self-assessment admits motivated reasoning.
- Structural holes close — reassess annually. Protect the vertical with
deep-workprotocols. - Choose horizontal domains for structural hole potential, not personal interest alone.
→ Primary sources: references/sources.md
Common Rationalizations
[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.
| Fake Move | Reality |
|---|---|
| [D] "I've worked in multiple domains so I'm T-shaped" | Sequential domain experience without deep vertical investment is a flat dash. The T requires genuine top-20% depth, not tenure. |
| [D] "I'm a generalist — I can connect across everything" | Generalists translate broadly but not deeply. Connector credibility requires domain depth; without it, translations are dismissed as superficial. |
| [D] "My diverse MBA network makes me a connector" | Social proximity to diverse practitioners is not the same as producing credible translations. Network diversity and connector capability are orthogonal. |
| [D] "I've read extensively in domain B — I can translate to domain A" | Reading produces acquaintance, not fluency. The connector test is whether domain-B practitioners find your translations credible, not whether you can pass a reading test. |
| [D] "My cross-team coordination role makes me a connector" | Coordinators facilitate logistics of existing communication. Connectors produce insights neither domain could have produced alone. |
| [D] "I'm building my horizontal now — my vertical will follow" | The horizontal is built on the credibility of the vertical. Horizontal before vertical is generalism, not connector-building. |
| [D] "I can explain domain A to anyone — that proves I'm T-shaped" | Explaining to lay audiences is a teaching skill. The connector test requires credibility with domain-B practitioners — a substantially higher bar. |
| → Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern | What went wrong and why |
Red Flags
- No real domain-B practitioner has confirmed novelty + credibility — connector test never run in the real world
- Identified structural hole is fully occupied by an existing sub-discipline — arbitrage already captured
- All horizontal domains are in the same cognitive cluster as the vertical (software engineer claiming DevOps, product, data science)
- More time spent talking about cross-domain connections than doing vertical work
- No protection protocol for the vertical in the investment plan
Verification
- Vertical validated against top-20% test using ≥3 objective proxies, not self-assessment
- Horizontal domains ranked by Pareto filter — primary horizontal maximizes structural-hole potential, not personal interest
- Structural hole validated with ≥2 real instances of communication failure between domain-A and domain-B practitioners
- Connector test run with a real domain-B practitioner, scored ≥4 on both novelty and credibility
- Occupation protocol specifies concrete vehicles (talks, papers, projects); protection protocol specifies deep-work commitment + tripwire
- Stop-rule applied: if vertical and horizontal were already established, process began at Step 4
Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — 233 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/s/t-shaped-connector · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.
Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/t-shaped-connector.json