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 baselayer:complexity-analysis 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 baselayer: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.