agentleFS
codybromcodybrom/clairvoyance/skills/strategic-mindset/SKILL.md

strategic-mindset

Skill12 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Assesses whether code reflects strategic or tactical thinking, including the 10-20% investment rule and tactical-tornado patterns. Use when evaluating design investment, when code was written under time pressure, or when working code consistently degrades the system. Not for judging whether a specific diff looks designed-in or bolted-on (use code-evolution).

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈10

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    When invoked with $ARGUMENTS, focus the analysis on the specified file, module, or codebase area.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    When reviewing code written under time pressure

    line 18
  3. Distinctive:

    When assessing technical debt in a codebase

    line 19
  4. Distinctive:

    When a developer consistently produces working code that degrades the system

    line 20
  5. Distinctive:

    When deciding how much time to invest in a design

    line 21
  6. Distinctive:

    Reactive: When you discover a design problem, fix it.

    line 36
  7. Distinctive:

    Not all upfront. Spread across the project

    line 46
  8. Distinctive:

    Not a separate refactoring pass or cleanup session — woven into every task.

    line 47
  9. Distinctive:

    Before committing to any significant design, generate at least two fundamentally different approaches and compare on concrete criteria.

    line 60
  10. Distinctive:

    Project forward: If the next 10 changes follow this pattern, what happens?

    line 84

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Strategic Mindset Review Lens

When invoked with $ARGUMENTS, focus the analysis on the specified file, module, or codebase area. Read the target code first, then apply the checks below.

"The first step towards becoming a good software designer is to realize that working code isn't enough." — John Ousterhout, A Philosophy of Software Design

Evaluate whether code invests in design or just gets the job done.

When to Apply

  • When reviewing code written under time pressure
  • When assessing technical debt in a codebase
  • When a developer consistently produces working code that degrades the system
  • When deciding how much time to invest in a design

Core Principles

Strategic vs. Tactical

Tactical Programming

Get it working, move on. Each shortcut is locally defensible. This is precisely what makes it dangerous: it doesn't feel dangerous.

Strategic Programming

Produce a great design that also happens to work. Two modes:

  • Proactive: Explore alternatives before implementing. Write documentation before code to surface interface problems early.
  • Reactive: When you discover a design problem, fix it.

See code-evolution's "Designed This Way" test for the full three-question procedure (what would this look like designed from scratch; does the modification match that; what's the minimum restructuring to close the gap).

The Unit of Development Should Be an Abstraction

Working in abstraction-sized chunks lets you consider trade-offs and arrive at general-purpose solutions. Once you discover the need for an abstraction, design it all at once. Don't create it in pieces over time. Working in test-sized chunks (write one test, make it pass) encourages tiny increments that never step back for the big picture. TDD risks becoming tactical programming with a disciplined veneer. Each increment is responsible, but the aggregate drifts toward specialization because no step encourages holistic design thinking.

The 10-20% Investment Rule

  • Not all upfront. Spread across the project
  • Not a separate refactoring pass or cleanup session — woven into every task.
  • Each task should leave the system slightly better than it found it

Crossover point estimated at 6-18 months, after which design quality saves more time than investments cost. (Ousterhout calls this "just my opinion" with "no data to back it up.")

The Slippery Slope

Once you start cutting corners, it quickly becomes the default. "Add a TODO" and "make a backlog ticket" are how shortcuts you should have never taken become permanent. Tactical code is extremely difficult to fix after the fact and the payoff for good design comes quickly enough that cutting corners may not even save time on the current task.

Good software design makes every collaborator more effective. Humans, agents and subagents all produce better work in less time with fewer prompts/tokens when the code they're building on is clean. Bad design does the opposite: every contributor spends more time fighting the system than improving it, and their output degrades the system further.

Design It Twice

Before committing to any significant design, generate at least two fundamentally different approaches and compare on concrete criteria. See the design-it-twice skill for the full procedure and comparison checklist.

Tactical Tornado

A developer who produces impressive output by cutting design corners. The damage is invisible, or worse, looks like inefficiency from whoever follows them. The causal chain doesn't surface naturally.

Signs in code:

  • Quick fixes layered on quick fixes
  • Copy-paste with minor modifications instead of generalization
  • "It works" treated as sufficient
  • Undocumented dependencies

Zero Tolerance

Each shortcut makes the next one easier to justify. The first accepted shortcut sets a precedent. The second cites the first. Selective tolerance is normalization in progress.

This doesn't mean over-engineer. It means: do the simple, clean thing instead of the hacky thing.

Review Process

  1. Assess approach: Strategic or tactical?
  2. Evaluate investment: Did this change improve the system beyond the immediate requirement?
  3. Scan for tactical patterns: Copy-paste, quick fixes, missing abstractions?
  4. Project forward: If the next 10 changes follow this pattern, what happens?
  5. Recommend: Specific investments with estimated effort

Red flag signals for strategic mindset are cataloged in red-flags (Tactical Momentum).

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.