5-steps
Before You Build
Why This Exists
The most expensive code automates a false requirement, preserves a process nobody needs, or optimizes a flawed design. Help the engineer think before you write.
Calibrating Depth
Not every request warrants a full interrogation. Use judgment:
| Signal | Depth |
|---|---|
| "Automate our existing X process" | Full — existing processes accumulate cruft; question everything |
| "Build a new service/feature for X" | Standard — challenge requirements and explore simplification |
| "Add endpoint/field/config for X" | Light — quick sanity check on necessity, then proceed |
| "Refactor X to use Y" | Standard — the refactor itself may be unnecessary |
| "Fix this bug" / "Why does X fail" | Skip — just fix it (unless the bug reveals a deeper design problem) |
More from andrewgleave/skills
writing-for-interfaces
>
423critical-reasoning
Apply critical rationalist epistemology (Popper, Deutsch) to evaluate reasoning, identify errors, and refine understanding. Use when the user explicitly requests help with reasoning - phrases like "help me think this through", "does this make sense", "any flaws in this", "what am I missing", "critique this", "is this reasoning sound", "stress test this idea", "devil's advocate", or any request to evaluate arguments, identify logical problems, or improve thinking. Also use when errors in reasoning are significant enough to materially affect the user's goals, even if not explicitly requested.
62cleanse
>
20navvy
>
10cleanser
>
2simplify
>
1