CBT Cards / Toolkit

A source corpus is not a recommendation list.

The toolkit contains 115 pinned source records. CBT Cards keeps those records available for provenance while publishing only a smaller reviewed layer.

Pinned source

77 cards, 23 metaphors, 15 protocols.

77 cards

Short source prompts spanning cognitive, behavioral, ACT-adjacent, DBT-adjacent, and generic wellness themes.

Browse source IDs →

23 metaphors

Narrative memory aids. A metaphor can help an idea stick but is not evidence for the idea.

Browse metaphors →

15 protocols

Multi-step records kept source-only unless a future protocol-specific evidence and safety review says otherwise.

Browse protocols →

Two separate questions

Publication status answers: “Has CBT Cards explicitly reviewed this source record for a standalone public page?” Any unlisted record defaults to unreviewed and source_only.

Editorial audit answers: “What is worth reviewing next, what overlaps, what needs attribution or rework, and what should stay source-only?” The audit covers every pinned source ID, but audit status is not publication approval.

Current curated source pages

Why CBT Cards also has owned practices

The reviewed Practice Finder is the preferred situation-first layer for new recommendations. It uses explicit mechanisms, evidence notes, safety exclusions, and no_match behavior rather than asking an assistant to select freely from all 115 raw records.

Owned content beyond the source toolkit

The CBT Cards content library is deliberately separate from this pinned source corpus. It now contains 42 CBT Cards-owned modules across seven formats: patterns, bounded low-risk experiments, worked examples, reflection scripts, contrasts, progressions, and decision rules. Every module links back to existing reviewed practices and evidence instead of creating a looser recommendation layer.

Browse contrasts, progressions and decision rules →

Machine-readable: content-library.json for the first 24 modules and content-guides.json for the 18 navigation guides. The exact short formats are editorial syntheses; they do not carry independent clinical-efficacy claims.

Machine-readable boundaries

Editorial review is not clinical validation or proof of efficacy.