Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

thinking-reversibility

Before heavy deliberation, classify the decision as cheap or costly to undo; decide two-way doors fast and stage one-way doors to preserve options.

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

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md3.1 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Reversibility

Core rule: match process depth to undo cost. Most decisions are cheaper to reverse than they look; irreversible ones deserve deliberation and staged commitment.

When to Use

  • Uncertain how much analysis a decision deserves (tech, process, product, org)
  • Tempted to committee a low-blast-radius choice, or to rush a high-lock-in one
  • Can redesign the move (pilot, flag, abstraction, time-box) to lower undo cost
  • High-stakes choice where acting vs waiting have asymmetric recovery profiles

When NOT to Use

  • Already classified this session—decide at matched depth; do not re-label forever
  • Trivial two-way calls (names, local refactors) where deciding is cheaper than classifying
  • Externally forced move with no optionality (hard deadline, contract, regulation)
  • Correctness gates (security, data integrity) that need the right answer, not speed theater

Procedure

  1. Name the decision and undo path. State what would be committed and the concrete reverse move (rollback, migrate back, revoke, re-hire, re-contract).
  2. Score reversibility. Assess technical effort, time, money, reputation, dependents, and learning lost if reversed. Classify:
    • Type 2: undo in days, low cost → decide fast
    • Type 1.5: undo in weeks, moderate cost → light structure + monitor
    • Type 1: months or not realistically undoable → deliberate
  3. Asymmetric downside / recovery. For Type 1 or 1.5:
    • Acting wrong: downside, recoverable?, recovery cost
    • Not acting: what permanently closes (window, exclusivity, path lock)
    • Rule: recoverable acting downside + permanent inaction loss → staged commit over indefinite delay; catastrophic or third-party harm → refuse or redesign first
  4. Option-preserving redesign. Prefer pilots, feature flags, interfaces, versioning, time-boxed vendor terms, or strangler slices that convert Type 1 surface into Type 2 experiments. Deliberate only the residual irreversible core.
  5. Match process and commit. Type 2: pick a reasonable option, ship, monitor. Type 1: document assumptions, argue the opposing case, surface to owner if stakes require it. Stop once class and commitment depth are set—do not re-analyze without new undo-cost evidence.

Output

Decision: …
Undo path: …
Class: Type 2 | 1.5 | 1 (factors: …)
Acting downside / recovery: …
Not-acting permanent loss: …
Staging / option-preserving move: …
Process depth: decide-now | pilot | full deliberation
Commitment: …

Verification

  • Falsify: If "we can always change later" has no concrete undo path and cost, treat as more irreversible until proven otherwise.
  • Stop: After class and process depth are set, further taxonomy is waste—execute the matched process.
  • Over-application guard: Do not slow trivial Type 2 work with matrices. Do not use "two-way door" to skip verification on irreversible data, security, or public commitments.

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

Use when search or investigation could run forever. Set an explicit good-enough threshold first, then stop at the first option that clears it.

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

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7KUpdated Aug 8, 2026

Use when a specific claim may lack grounding. Check evidence boundary, size wrongness cost, then answer, fetch, or abstain — never confabulate.

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

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7KUpdated Aug 8, 2026

When the right response mode is unclear, classify the cause-effect domain first; decompose disorder.

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

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7KUpdated Aug 8, 2026

Under genuine uncertainty with no reliable forecast, inventory means, cap downside at affordable loss, act for commitments, and let goals emerge from controllable moves.

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

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7KUpdated Aug 8, 2026

When a constraint is treated as fixed, separate physics from convention, keep only independently supported primitives, and rebuild the simplest solution that satisfies real constraints.

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

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7KUpdated Aug 8, 2026

When a fault is localized and the proximate cause is known but the systemic root is not, chain evidence-linked whys with a counterfactual stop and a countermeasure.

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

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7KUpdated Aug 8, 2026

See all skills by tjboudreaux

Report a problem with this skill