📦 deps(thirdparty): update snapshots

2026-05-29 08:33:53 +00:00
parent fdb52f1e96
commit 06e0d13d57
1615 changed files with 232858 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+---
+description: Challenge complexity and find simpler alternatives before implementing
+argument-hint: [proposed solution or approach to evaluate]
+---
+
+# Challenge Complexity
+
+Evaluate the proposed solution for unnecessary complexity before committing to it.
+
+## Instructions
+
+- Consider the recent conversation history, your context, and the proposal to be evaluated.
+- Specific user instructions should be followed unless they are contradictory to the task at hand. $ARGUMENTS
+
+## Steps
+
+1. **Load** — Use the Skill tool and load the **outfitter:simplify** skill
+2. **Consider** — Ultrathink and analyze the proposal, identify initial complexity concerns
+3. **Dispatch or Execute** — Choose execution path based on available tools:
+   - **If Task tool available**: Run the simplify loop (see below)
+   - **If Task tool unavailable**: Execute the complexity analysis methodology directly using the loaded skill
+
+## Simplify Loop (when Task tool available)
+
+Run iterative cycles with a persistent skeptic agent until complexity is resolved:
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│  1. ANALYZE — Dispatch outfitter:skeptic                    │
+│     └─ Examine proposal, identify complexity triggers,      │
+│        generate alternatives, return structured findings    │
+│                          ↓                                  │
+│  2. PRESENT — Share findings with user                      │
+│     └─ Escalation level, alternatives, probing questions    │
+│                          ↓                                  │
+│  3. DISCUSS — Gather user response                          │
+│     └─ User provides context, answers questions,            │
+│        or asks skeptic to dig deeper                        │
+│                          ↓                                  │
+│  4. EVALUATE — Determine next action                        │
+│     └─ If resolved → Document decision                      │
+│     └─ If more analysis needed → Resume skeptic (step 1)    │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+### Loop Execution
+
+1. **Initial dispatch** — Pass proposal, context, requirements to skeptic
+2. **Retrieve results** — Use TaskOutput to get structured JSON analysis
+3. **Present to user** — Share escalation level, alternatives, and probing questions
+4. **Gather feedback** — User may:
+   - Answer probing questions (pass answers back to skeptic)
+   - Ask skeptic to examine specific aspects deeper
+   - Accept an alternative and proceed
+   - Justify complexity with evidence (skeptic validates)
+5. **Resume or conclude**:
+   - **More analysis needed**: Resume same skeptic agent with `resume: {agentId}` and new context
+   - **Decision reached**: Document outcome (proceed with simple, proceed with justified complexity, or revisit approach)
+
+### Resumable Skeptic Pattern
+
+The skeptic maintains context across invocations via the `resume` parameter:
+
+```
+Initial dispatch:
+  → skeptic analyzes proposal
+  → returns findings + agentId: "abc123"
+
+User provides additional context:
+  → resume skeptic with { resume: "abc123" }
+  → skeptic refines analysis with new information
+
+User asks about specific concern:
+  → resume skeptic with { resume: "abc123" }
+  → skeptic digs deeper on that aspect
+```
+
+This preserves the skeptic's understanding of the proposal through multiple rounds of refinement.
+
+## The Framework
+
+1. IDENTIFY — what complexity is being proposed?
+2. ALTERNATIVE — what's the simplest thing that could work?
+3. QUESTION — why isn't the simple approach sufficient?
+4. DOCUMENT — if complexity is justified, record why
+
+## Context Handoff (for initial dispatch)
+
+When dispatching to the skeptic subagent, include:
+- The proposed solution or approach
+- Current requirements and constraints
+- Any justifications already offered
+- Team/project context if relevant
+
+When resuming the skeptic, include:
+- User's answers to probing questions
+- Additional context or constraints revealed
+- Specific areas to examine further
+- Evidence offered to justify complexity
+
+## Red Flag Rationalizations
+
+Watch for these justifications — they usually indicate unjustified complexity:
+
+- "We might need this later"
+- "It's more flexible this way"
+- "This is how X company does it"
+- "It's the industry standard"
+- "We should do it right the first time"
+
+## Verdicts and Outcomes
+
+The skeptic returns one of three verdicts:
+
+| Verdict | Meaning | Action |
+|---------|---------|--------|
+| **proceed** | Complexity is minor (◇) | Note alternatives, continue |
+| **caution** | Complexity is moderate (◆) | Discuss before proceeding |
+| **block** | Complexity is high risk (◆◆) | Address concerns first |
+
+After discussion, document the outcome:
+- **Simplified**: Chose simpler alternative
+- **Justified**: Complexity validated with evidence, documented in ADR
+- **Deferred**: Needs more investigation, created follow-up task
+
+The goal is NOT to reject all complexity — it's to ensure complexity is justified by evidence, not speculation.