Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

thinking-via-negativa

Use when the reflex is to add a feature, layer, or process. Prefer removing harmful or nonessential elements first, with an irreversibility guard before deletion.

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

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md2.9 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Via Negativa

Improve by subtraction before addition. Prefer removing harm, waste, and nonessential complexity; add only when a demonstrated need remains after removal candidates are exhausted.

When to Use

  • About to add a feature, abstraction, dependency, process, or control to fix a problem.
  • Simplifying a system or workflow where complexity is the tax.
  • Prioritizing by deciding what not to keep, build, or maintain.
  • Performance or reliability work where eliminating a bad path beats bolting on mitigation.

When NOT to Use

  • Load-bearing controls: auth, validation, tests, rate limits, retries, safety checks — presume necessary until proven dead.
  • A demonstrated requirement that cannot be met by removal or simplification.
  • Aesthetic minimalism without evidence of non-use or net harm.
  • Irreversible deletion without a rollback path when impact is unknown.

Procedure

  1. Pause the add reflex. State the goal and the proposed addition in one line.
  2. Ask the subtraction question first. List what could be removed or stopped to achieve the same goal with less surface area.
  3. Catalog candidates with evidence. Prefer unused, redundant, high-cost/low-value, or harmful elements. Require usage, call-graph, metrics, or experiment evidence — not taste.
  4. Apply the irreversibility guard. Classify reversible vs hard-to-restore; identify dependents; refuse deleting unproven mystery guards. Plan staged removal or flag when risk is non-trivial.
  5. Remove the safest high-value candidate first. Subtract, monitor, and verify absence of needed behavior before the next removal.
  6. Add only if the goal still fails. If subtraction cannot meet the need, add the minimum change and record why removal was insufficient.
  7. Stop when the goal is met by absence, or remaining candidates fail the irreversibility/evidence bar and a minimal addition is justified.

Stop condition: Goal achieved via removal, or residual need documented after evidence-backed subtraction failed.

Output

Goal: <desired outcome>
Proposed add (if any): <thing>
Removal candidates: <element — evidence — risk — reversible?>
Action: remove <X> | staged remove <X> | add minimal <Y> because <why removal failed>
Verification plan: <how absence/success is checked>
Do-not-touch: <load-bearing items preserved>

Verification

  • Falsify if something was deleted without non-use/harm evidence, or a safety control was removed as "complexity."
  • Falsify if an addition shipped without a prior subtraction pass on the same goal.
  • Over-application guard: do not delete for line-count or purity when the element is load-bearing or the need is demonstrated.

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