Coding

thinking-reversibility

Try it

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.

What it does

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 skill document

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.

Related skills

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

1 installs

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.

2 installs

Use when a selective defect needs IS/IS-NOT difference analysis or a consequential option choice needs must/want weighting and adverse-consequence comparison.

1 installs

Deciding what to build or why adoption fails. Recover the progress users hire a solution for under a circumstance, then rank by outcome and competing workarounds.

1 installs

Distill decision contexts, options, trade-offs, and outcomes into structured decision records. Use when the user is facing a choice, has made a decision they...

17 installs

Activate when: user says 'do a pre-mortem', 'what could go wrong', 'why might this fail', 'invert the question', 'what would have to be true for this to be a...

4 installs2 stars