c24165b8bc
에이전트 8종(대화형/프로그래머 C·S/디자이너/설계자/기획자/QA/PD/PM)에게 [공통 기본 능력 + 롤별 Specialty] 2층으로 지식을 주입하기 위한 재분류. 문서 내용·포맷은 무수정, 폴더 이동만 (6,372개 문서 수 보존 확인). - Topic_Programming → Domain_Programming (내부 구조 보존) - Topic_Graphic → Domain_Design - Topic_Business → Domain_Product - Topic_General → Domain_General - _Common 신설: Math(구 Topic_Math_Specialty), Reasoning(구 General/From_Thinking & Reasoning), Reasoning_Creativity(구 General/From_창의성), Communication(Poetic_Blog_Writing + From_writing) - 타 도메인의 From_* 폴더는 유지 (출처 표기일 뿐, 이미 도메인에 맞게 분류된 문서) - 빈 폴더 정리 (memory/procedures) - 에이전트→폴더 매핑은 workspace의 .astra/agent-knowledge-map.json (9개 에이전트) Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
5.4 KiB
5.4 KiB
id, title, category, status, canonical_id, aliases, duplicate_of, source_trust_level, confidence_score, verification_status, tags, raw_sources, last_reinforced, github_commit, tech_stack
| id | title | category | status | canonical_id | aliases | duplicate_of | source_trust_level | confidence_score | verification_status | tags | raw_sources | last_reinforced | github_commit | tech_stack | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| wiki-2026-0508-systems-thinking | Systems Thinking | 10_Wiki/Topics | verified | self |
|
none | A | 0.9 | applied |
|
2026-05-10 | pending |
|
Systems Thinking
매 한 줄
"매 part 의 sum 의 X — 매 interaction 의 emergent behavior". 매 element 의 isolated analysis 의 대신 매 stocks, flows, feedback loops, delays 의 holistic 의 see. Donella Meadows 의 "Thinking in Systems" 의 canonical — 2026 의 software, climate, policy 의 적용.
매 핵심
매 핵심 vocabulary
- Stock: 매 accumulation (inventory, $, customers, tech debt).
- Flow: 매 rate of change (sales/day, hires/month).
- Feedback loop: 매 output 의 input 의 영향.
- Reinforcing (R): amplifies — 매 viral growth.
- Balancing (B): stabilizes — 매 thermostat.
- Delay: 매 cause → effect 의 lag — oscillation 의 cause.
매 leverage points (Meadows, ranked)
- Paradigm (mindset).
- Goals of system.
- Self-organization rules.
- Information flows.
- Rules / incentives.
- Negative feedback strength.
- Positive feedback strength.
- Material flows / stocks.
- Numbers / parameters (lowest leverage).
매 archetypes
- Limits to Growth: R + B → S-curve.
- Shifting the Burden: short-term fix 의 weakens long-term solution.
- Tragedy of the Commons: shared resource 의 overuse.
- Fixes That Fail: 매 quick fix 의 root cause 의 worsen.
- Success to the Successful: rich-get-richer.
- Escalation: arms race.
매 응용
- Software incident analysis (alerts → fatigue → ignore).
- Tech debt dynamics (speed ↔ debt ↔ slowdown).
- Org design (incentives → behavior → outcomes).
- Climate / policy modeling.
💻 패턴
Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) — text format
Tech debt:
velocity (-) → tech_debt // less time to fix → debt grows
tech_debt (-) → velocity // more debt → slower work
// R loop: vicious cycle
tech_debt (+) → cleanup_priority
cleanup_priority (-) → tech_debt
// B loop: self-correcting (if priority actually given)
Stock-flow — Python (simple SIR)
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def sir(beta=0.3, gamma=0.1, S0=999, I0=1, R0=0, days=160, dt=1):
S, I, R = [S0], [I0], [R0]
N = S0 + I0 + R0
for _ in range(int(days/dt)):
dS = -beta * S[-1] * I[-1] / N
dI = beta * S[-1] * I[-1] / N - gamma * I[-1]
dR = gamma * I[-1]
S.append(S[-1] + dS*dt)
I.append(I[-1] + dI*dt)
R.append(R[-1] + dR*dt)
return S, I, R
S, I, R = sir()
plt.plot(I, label='Infected')
plt.show()
Limits to Growth — code
def growth_with_limit(K=1000, r=0.1, P0=10, T=200):
P = [P0]
for _ in range(T):
# R loop: r*P (reinforcing)
# B loop: (1 - P/K) (balancing as P → K)
dP = r * P[-1] * (1 - P[-1] / K)
P.append(P[-1] + dP)
return P
# Logistic curve: explosive then plateau
Behavior over time graph (BoT)
^ ___
| __/
| __/ ← logistic (limits to growth)
| ___/
| ___/
| ___/
| __/
| __/
| /
+----------------------------> time
Archetype detector — checklist
shifting_the_burden:
symptoms:
- "Quick fix repeatedly applied"
- "Underlying problem persists or worsens"
- "Capability for fundamental fix atrophies"
examples:
- Painkillers vs. cause
- Hotfixes vs. refactoring
- Hiring more on-call vs. reducing alerts
Causal vs. correlational
# Bad: regression on snapshot
# Good: simulate stocks/flows over time, validate
# with both reference modes (BoT) and structure
매 결정 기준
| 상황 | Approach |
|---|---|
| Persistent recurring issue | Identify archetype |
| Counter-intuitive outcome | Look for delays / loops |
| Quick decision | Mental CLD sketch |
| Forecast / policy test | Stock-flow simulation |
| Single-cause obvious | 매 systems thinking 의 overkill |
기본값: 매 CLD sketch 의 first — 매 archetype 의 명확 시 의 simulation.
🔗 Graph
- 부모: Cybernetics Foundations
- 응용: Tech Debt
- Adjacent: Feedback Loops · Mental_Models · Causal Inference
🤖 LLM 활용
언제: archetype identification, CLD draft from narrative, 매 hidden loops 의 surface. 언제 X: quantitative simulation (use Vensim, Stella, SimPy) — LLM 의 numeric simulation 의 unreliable.
❌ 안티패턴
- Linear thinking on systemic problem: 매 single cause 의 search — 매 loop 의 miss.
- Ignore delays: 매 oscillation 의 surprise — 매 delay 의 model.
- Optimize parts in isolation: 매 local optim 의 global degrade.
- Paralysis by complexity: 매 over-modeling — 매 핵심 archetype 의 enough.
🧪 검증 / 중복
- Verified (Donella Meadows "Thinking in Systems"; Senge "5th Discipline"; Sterman "Business Dynamics").
- 신뢰도 A.
🕓 Changelog
| 날짜 | 변경 |
|---|---|
| 2026-05-08 | Phase 1 |
| 2026-05-10 | Manual cleanup — stocks/flows, archetypes, CLD, leverage points |