7b42ebd2b0
Added 16 custom skills: - ralph (RalphLoop autonomous agent) - brainstorming (with Ralph integration) - dispatching-parallel-agents - autonomous-loop - multi-ai-brainstorm - cognitive-context, cognitive-core, cognitive-planner, cognitive-safety - tool-discovery-agent - ui-ux-pro-max (full design system) - wordpress-ai - agent-pipeline-builder - dev-browser - planning-with-files - playwright-skill Also organized remaining skills that were at root level into skills/ folder. Total: 272 skills from skills.sh + 16 custom upgrades Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
82 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
82 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: reducing-entropy
|
|
description: Manual-only skill for minimizing total codebase size. Only activate when explicitly requested by user. Measures success by final code amount, not effort. Bias toward deletion.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Reducing Entropy
|
|
|
|
More code begets more code. Entropy accumulates. This skill biases toward the smallest possible codebase.
|
|
|
|
**Core question:** "What does the codebase look like *after*?"
|
|
|
|
## Before You Begin
|
|
|
|
**Load at least one mindset from `references/`**
|
|
|
|
1. List the files in the reference directory
|
|
2. Read frontmatter descriptions to pick which applies
|
|
3. Load at least one
|
|
4. State which you loaded and its core principle
|
|
|
|
**Do not proceed until you've done this.**
|
|
|
|
## The Goal
|
|
|
|
The goal is **less total code in the final codebase** - not less code to write right now.
|
|
|
|
- Writing 50 lines that delete 200 lines = net win
|
|
- Keeping 14 functions to avoid writing 2 = net loss
|
|
- "No churn" is not a goal. Less code is the goal.
|
|
|
|
**Measure the end state, not the effort.**
|
|
|
|
## Three Questions
|
|
|
|
### 1. What's the smallest codebase that solves this?
|
|
|
|
Not "what's the smallest change" - what's the smallest *result*.
|
|
|
|
- Could this be 2 functions instead of 14?
|
|
- Could this be 0 functions (delete the feature)?
|
|
- What would we delete if we did this?
|
|
|
|
### 2. Does the proposed change result in less total code?
|
|
|
|
Count lines before and after. If after > before, reject it.
|
|
|
|
- "Better organized" but more code = more entropy
|
|
- "More flexible" but more code = more entropy
|
|
- "Cleaner separation" but more code = more entropy
|
|
|
|
### 3. What can we delete?
|
|
|
|
Every change is an opportunity to delete. Ask:
|
|
|
|
- What does this make obsolete?
|
|
- What was only needed because of what we're replacing?
|
|
- What's the maximum we could remove?
|
|
|
|
## Red Flags
|
|
|
|
- **"Keep what exists"** - Status quo bias. The question is total code, not churn.
|
|
- **"This adds flexibility"** - Flexibility for what? YAGNI.
|
|
- **"Better separation of concerns"** - More files/functions = more code. Separation isn't free.
|
|
- **"Type safety"** - Worth how many lines? Sometimes runtime checks in less code wins.
|
|
- **"Easier to understand"** - 14 things are not easier than 2 things.
|
|
|
|
## When This Doesn't Apply
|
|
|
|
- The codebase is already minimal for what it does
|
|
- You're in a framework with strong conventions (don't fight it)
|
|
- Regulatory/compliance requirements mandate certain structures
|
|
|
|
## Reference Mindsets
|
|
|
|
See `references/` for philosophical grounding.
|
|
|
|
To add new mindsets, see `adding-reference-mindsets.md`.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**Bias toward deletion. Measure the end state.**
|