antipattern-detector
Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Detects common failure patterns in proposals, architectures, plans, and decisions. Use when reviewing any plan to identify red flags before they become problems. Covers architecture, timeline, team, process, and technology anti-patterns. Works on any domain — not just code.
In this repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- architecture-reviewSkill
- assumption-challengerSkill
- cavemanSkill
- clipSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- feature-writerSkill
- gemini-advisorSkill
- gemini-reviewerSkill
- grill-meSkill
- image-generatorSkill
- issue-creatorSkill
- paper-bananaSkill
- pr-writerSkill
- publishSkill
- tddSkill
- teach-meSkill
- validatorSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 72
Look for phrases that indicate anti-patterns:
- Very specific: line 121
Use antipattern-detector for recognizing known failure patterns (architecture, timeline, team, process, technology).
- Distinctive: line 125
Before presenting an analysis, verify:
≈ “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.
Files
Anti-Pattern Detector
Identifies recurring failure patterns in plans and decisions. Anti-patterns look reasonable on the surface but lead to predictable problems. Detecting them early saves months of pain.
Anti-Pattern Categories
1. Architecture Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Description | Symptoms |
| Big Ball of Mud | No clear structure, everything coupled | Can't change X without breaking Y |
| Golden Hammer | Using one approach for everything | "We'll use [tool] for that too" |
| Premature Microservices | Splitting before understanding boundaries | 3 people managing 20 services |
| Distributed Monolith | Microservices with tight coupling | Must deploy all services together |
| Resume-Driven Development | Choices for career, not product | "Let's use Rust for the admin panel" |
2. Timeline Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Description | Symptoms |
| Timeline Fantasy | Optimistic estimates ignoring reality | "6 weeks if everything goes well" |
| Scope Creep Blindness | Not accounting for inevitable growth | Same deadline, 2x scope |
| Parallel Path Delusion | Assuming unlimited parallelization | "Add more people to go faster" |
| MVP Maximalism | MVP that's actually V3 | 47 features in "minimum" product |
| Demo-Driven Development | Building for demos, not production | "It works on my machine" |
3. Team Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Description | Symptoms |
| Hero Culture | Reliance on key individuals | "Only Sarah can fix that" |
| Knowledge Silos | Critical info in one person's head | Bus factor of 1 |
| Conway's Law Violation | Structure doesn't match team | Boundaries don't align |
| Understaffed Ambition | Big plans with tiny teams | 2 people building "the platform" |
| Absent Ownership | No clear owner for components | Issues fall through cracks |
4. Process Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Description | Symptoms |
| Cargo Cult Agile | Ceremonies without principles | Standups but no shipping |
| Analysis Paralysis | Over-planning, under-executing | Month 3 of "finalizing requirements" |
| Infinite Refactoring | Never shipping, always improving | "One more cleanup before release" |
| Documentation Theater | Docs that no one reads | 200-page spec, outdated day 1 |
| Meeting Madness | More meetings than doing | "Let's schedule a meeting" |
5. Technology Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Description | Symptoms |
| Shiny Object Syndrome | Chasing latest tech without reason | "Rewrite in [new hotness]" |
| Not Invented Here | Building what should be bought | Custom auth, custom logging, custom everything |
| Vendor Lock-in Denial | Ignoring exit costs | "We can always migrate later" |
| Premature Optimization | Optimizing before measuring | Caching layer with 10 users |
| Framework Overload | Too many frameworks/libraries | 47 dependencies for a button |
Detection Process
Step 1: Scan for Signals
Look for phrases that indicate anti-patterns:
Timeline signals: "If everything goes well...", "We can do it faster if...", "Just need to hire...", "Should only take..."
Architecture signals: "We'll figure out boundaries later...", "Everything talks to everything...", "It's only temporary...", "We can always refactor..."
Team signals: "Only [person] knows...", "We'll hire for that...", "[Person] will handle all of...", "The team can absorb..."
Process signals: "We don't need docs...", "We'll add tests later...", "Let's discuss in the meeting...", "Requirements are evolving..."
Step 2: Verify Pattern Match
For each suspected anti-pattern:
- Identify: Which specific pattern?
- Evidence: What in the plan matches?
- Severity: How bad? (Critical / High / Medium / Low)
- Context: Could this be a reasonable exception?
Step 3: Check for Combinations
Certain patterns appear together and compound risk:
Startup Death Spiral: Timeline Fantasy + Understaffed Ambition + Hero Culture
- Result: Burnout, missed deadlines, key person leaves
Enterprise Trap: Analysis Paralysis + Documentation Theater + Meeting Madness
- Result: Nothing ships, team frustrated, competition wins
Tech Debt Avalanche: "Refactor later" + No ownership + Premature optimization
- Result: System unmaintainable, rewrite required
Microservices Mistake: Premature Microservices + Distributed Monolith + Understaffed
- Result: Complexity explosion, slower than monolith
Severity Framework
| Level | Meaning | Action |
| Critical | Will cause failure if not addressed | Stop and fix before proceeding |
| High | Will cause significant problems | Address in planning phase |
| Medium | Will cause friction and delays | Include in risk mitigation |
| Low | Worth noting but manageable | Track and address opportunistically |
When to Use This Skill
Use antipattern-detector for recognizing known failure patterns (architecture, timeline, team, process, technology). Use assumption-challenger for surfacing hidden assumptions treated as facts. Both run together in /validate.
Pre-Delivery Checklist
Before presenting an analysis, verify:
- Every detected pattern includes a direct evidence quote from the plan
- Every pattern has a severity rating (Critical/High/Medium/Low)
- Pattern combinations are checked and reported
- "Patterns NOT Detected" section is included for confidence
- Fixes are specific and actionable, not generic advice
Output Format
# Anti-Pattern Analysis: [Plan Name]
## Summary
- **Patterns Detected**: [Count]
- **Critical**: [Count] | **High**: [Count] | **Medium**: [Count] | **Low**: [Count]
- **Overall Risk Level**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
- **Pattern Combinations Found**: [List any compound patterns]
## Critical Issues (Must Address)
### [Pattern Name]
**Category**: [Category] | **Severity**: Critical
**Evidence**: [What triggered detection]
**Risk**: [What will go wrong]
**Fix**: [How to address]
---
## High-Priority Issues (Should Address)
[Same format]
## Medium-Priority Issues (Consider Addressing)
[Same format]
## Patterns NOT Detected
[List patterns checked but not found — builds confidence]
## Recommendations
### Before Proceeding
1. [Critical action]
### During Execution
1. [Mitigation]
### Warning Signs to Monitor
- [Metric or signal to watch]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
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.

