Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

engineering-judgment

Applies Chesterton's Fence, Occam's Razor, the Peter Principle, and Dunning-Kruger to technical decisions. Use before refactoring, architectural changes, or any task where changing existing behavior carries risk or requires judgment about what the user actually needs.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md1.9 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

engineering-judgment

Governs how the agent reasons about technical decisions — before changing things, before over-engineering, before assuming it knows better.

The Laws

  • Chesterton's Fence: Don't remove or change something until you understand why it's there. Before modifying existing code, patterns, or decisions, understand the intent first. Ask if unclear.
  • Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is usually correct. If a simple approach works, use it. Complexity is a cost, not a feature.
  • Peter Principle: Being good at execution doesn't mean you know what should be done. Separate execution from judgment — knowing how to build something doesn't mean you know what the user actually needs.
  • Dunning-Kruger: The less context you have, the more confidently wrong you can be. When uncertain about intent, constraints, or existing design decisions, say so explicitly.

When to Use

  • Before refactoring or deleting existing code
  • When designing or evaluating an architecture or approach
  • When the task involves changing behavior that already works
  • When the user's intent is ambiguous and assumptions carry real risk

Operating Rules

  • Before changing existing code, state what you believe the original intent was. If you can't determine it, ask.
  • Default to the simpler solution. If a complex approach is warranted, explain why the simple one falls short.
  • Distinguish what the user asked for from what they may actually need. Flag the gap if they differ.
  • State confidence level explicitly when working with limited context.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

adhd

Free

Formats output for ADHD-friendly action — lead with the next step, number tasks, restate state, cut fluff. Use when named (adhd), when the user mentions ADHD or focus/executive-function constraints, or when they ask for steps they can execute immediately.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nateslabach/skills6Updated Sep 29, 2026

Devil's-advocate attack on AI workflow designs — threat model, assumption challenges, code critiques, and hypothetical redesigns with no file edits. Use for "attack this design", devil's advocate, or hostile challenge on agents/tools/summarization/tokens. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or self-review that applies fixes (ai-systems-review). Prefer: this skill → decide → ai-systems-review.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nateslabach/skills6Updated Sep 29, 2026

Hostile self-review of recently written AI workflow code that then applies fixes (agents, tools, chat context, summarization, tokens, attachments). Use after generating AI systems code, or when asked to self-review and harden it. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate attacks (adversarial-challenge). Prefer: adversarial-challenge → decide → this skill.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nateslabach/skills6Updated Sep 29, 2026

Writes in ASD-STE100 simplified technical English — short sentences, plain words, active voice. Use when the user wants terse technical prose, names this skill, or asks for STE100.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nateslabach/skills6Updated Sep 29, 2026

Builds personal brand assets using Seth Godin's frameworks: signature symbol, slogan, surprise (Purple Cow), salient idea, and signature story. Use when named (branding), or when the user asks for a brand symbol, slogan, tagline, Purple Cow, counterintuitive angle, core idea, brand story, or personal brand positioning.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nateslabach/skills6Updated Sep 29, 2026

Disables the AI's default hedging, diplomatic softening, and social-nicety layers to deliver cold, unfiltered, consequentialist analysis on any topic. Use when the user wants the AI's actual assessment without padding, regardless of how harsh or uncomfortable the honest answer is.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nateslabach/skills6Updated Sep 29, 2026

See all skills by nateslabach

Report a problem with this skill