version: "1.0.1" name: complexity-check description: After making changes, audit the diff through four lenses — Additions, Premises, Spread, Duplicates — to catch overbuilt changes and surface simplification opportunities the change itself can't see. Use after implementing a feature, refactor, or bug fix, before committing. Apply only the lenses that have signal to find for your diff; mark the rest N/A. hooks: PostToolUse:

• matcher: "*"

hooks:

• type: command

command: 'python3 "$HOME/.claude/skills/skill-feedback/scripts/skill-event.py" --skill complexity-check --event skill_activated --agent-harness claude-code --quiet' timeout: 5

Complexity Check

You just made changes. Before you ship them, run four independent lenses on the diff. Each asks a different question:

1. Additions — was each new thing necessary?
2. Premises — could any assumption be dropped to delete code?
3. Spread — is the concept localized?
4. Duplicates — does something like this already exist?

The lenses are independent — findings from one rarely overlap with findings from another. Apply only the lenses that have signal to find for your diff; mark the rest N/A in the output with a one-line reason, so the reader can see the lens was considered.

When to run this

• After implementing a feature or bug fix, before committing
• After a refactor that touched more files than expected
• When something felt harder to write than it should have been
• When you were tempted to add "for future flexibility"

Skip the whole skill for: tiny fixes (typos, renames, dep bumps), pure deletions, mechanical refactors.

Scoping

Always work from the diff against the base branch.

BASE=$(git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null)
git diff $BASE...HEAD                  # committed changes
git diff HEAD                          # uncommitted WIP
git diff --name-only $BASE...HEAD      # changed files

Read each changed file in full — not just the diff. The diff hides the surrounding context that decides whether a piece of complexity is justified.

Additions — was each new thing necessary?

Skip if the diff is pure deletions or renames.

For each meaningful chunk of the diff, ask:

• New abstraction (function, class, type, hook, interface, module): is it used in more than one place? If not, why does it exist?
• New branch (if/else, switch case, ternary): does the alternative path ever fire in practice? Could the caller's input have been narrowed instead?
• New parameter / option / config flag: is it set to a non-default value anywhere today? If not, delete it.
• New error handling (try/catch, null guard, fallback): does the error actually happen, or is this defending against an impossible state in trusted internal code?
• New file or module: could this code have lived in an existing file that already owns the concept?
• New concept the reader must learn (a name, a pattern, a layer): is the concept earning its cognitive cost?
• Net line count: lines added minus lines removed — is the project meaningfully better, or just bigger?

For each finding, name the specific complexity and what you'd cut.

One-paragraph defense rule: if defending a piece of complexity needs more than one paragraph, flag it. Short defenses mean it's earning its place; long defenses mean you're rationalizing.

Premises — could any assumption be dropped to delete code?

Skip if the touched files were created in this same PR — there are no established premises to challenge yet.

Walk the touched code (the files and their immediate neighbors). List the assumptions it relies on. Look for:

• Multiplicity: "an X can have many Y" — is it ever more than one in practice?
• Configurability: "X is configurable per Y" — does anyone configure it to something other than the default?
• Backward compat: "we still support format/version Z" — does anyone still use it?
• Feature flags: "this is gated on flag F" — is F still serving a purpose, or is it permanently on/off?
• Modes / variants: "the system handles case A and case B" — does case B ever happen?
• Optionality: "field F can be null" — does it ever arrive null from any real caller?
• Generality: "this works for any type T" — is T ever anything other than the one concrete case?
• Async-ness: "this is async / queued / retried" — does it ever actually need to be?

For each assumption, ask: if we asserted this is false (or always true), what could we delete? Estimate the deletion: a few lines, a function, a file, a subsystem.

Findings here are higher-leverage than the other lenses — they don't just trim the diff, they trim the codebase. But they're claims, not facts: each one needs verification (grep, git log, ask the team) before action.

Spread — is the concept localized?

Skip if the diff touches ≤2 files.

Look at the shape of the change across the codebase. One conceptual change that requires edits in many places usually means the abstraction is leaking — the diff is the symptom; the architecture is the bug.

Ask:

• Is one concept being threaded through many files? "Add notification read-state" requiring edits to schema + types + service + 3 components + settings + tests is a sign read-state isn't owned anywhere — it's smeared across the system.
• Is the same logic repeated at multiple call sites? Three components independently null-checking readAt and rendering an "unread" badge — three places to keep in sync.
• Is the change list-shaped? "Add this field to A, B, C, D, E…" patterns mean the next change like this will require another N-way edit. Table-driven or registry-based designs collapse N-way changes into 1-way changes.

For each finding, name the concept and where it's smeared. The action is usually "extract a registry / hook / table" so the next change is one-touch — but the skill's job is to notice, not fix.

Duplicates — does something like this already exist?

Skip in a brand-new module with no neighbors to compare against.

For each new function, type, hook, utility, or component the diff introduced, check whether the codebase already has something with the same shape.

Quick checks:

• grep -r "function <name>" src/ for new function names — and also grep for likely synonyms (debounce / throttle, fetch / get / load).
• For new types/interfaces, search for similar shapes elsewhere — particularly in adjacent modules.
• For new components, check the design system or shared component directory first.
• For new utilities, check utils/, lib/, and the top-level package.json for libraries already imported elsewhere.

Shapes that get reinvented constantly: debounce/throttle, deep-equal, deep-clone, retry-with-backoff, classnames helpers, async queues, event emitters, ID generators, date formatters.

For each finding, name the new thing and what already exists — include the file path of the existing primitive so the user can verify in one click.

Output

## Complexity Check
 
**Diff scope:** N files changed, +X/-Y lines
 
### Additions — was each new thing necessary?
-**[file:line]** [Specific complexity]. → [What to cut, and why it's safe.]
-...
 
If nothing flagged: "Change is appropriately sized for what it does."
If skipped: "N/A — [reason]."
 
### Premises — could any assumption be dropped?
-**[Assumption]** Currently: [where it shows up]. If false: [what could be deleted, rough size]. To verify: [grep / git log / ask whom].
-...
 
If nothing flagged: "No assumptions in this area look ripe to challenge."
If skipped: "N/A — [reason]."
 
### Spread — is the concept localized?
-**[Concept]** Smeared across: [files/lines]. → [What to extract / centralize.]
-...
 
If nothing flagged: "Change is appropriately localized."
If skipped: "N/A — [reason]."
 
### Duplicates — does something like this already exist?
-**[New thing]** at [file:line]. Existing equivalent at [file:line]. → [Use the existing primitive.]
-...
 
If nothing flagged: "No obvious duplication of existing primitives."
If skipped: "N/A — [reason]."
 
### Verdict
One sentence: **ship as-is** | **trim before shipping** | **broader simplification opportunity here — worth a separate task**.

Guardrails

• Surface, don't auto-fix. Flag complexity and assumption challenges; let the user decide. Simplification needs intent.
• Premises findings are claims, not facts. Mark each with how to verify (grep for usages, check git log for last config change, ask the team). Never delete based on a Premises finding without verifying.
• Stay scoped to the diff and its neighbors. Don't audit the whole codebase.
• Keep the report tight. 3–7 findings total across all four lenses. More than that and the user won't act on any.
• Mark skipped lenses N/A explicitly. Silence on a lens is ambiguous; "N/A — only 1 file changed" tells the reader the lens was considered.
• Don't flag things you'd let through in a code review. This is a self-critique pass, not a search for perfection.

AZ Skill Feedback

After the run, if this skill was useful, confusing, broken, or missing context, submit 1-3 safe sentences. Include --agent-harness when known. Include --model-config only if the harness exposes the exact model/config; otherwise leave it as unknown:

python3 ~/.agents/skills/skill-feedback/scripts/skill-feedback.py --skill complexity-check --rating idea --text "..."

Never include secrets, private data, source code, long prompts, or stack traces.