anti-entropy-governance
# Anti-Entropy Governance Anti-Entropy Governance helps decide whether to delete old code paths, retain backward compatibility, or pause for confirmation when retiring logic, collapsing duplicate owners, removing fallbacks, or modifying schema and persistence boundaries. Use this skill when facing a deletion decision during refactoring, deprecation, migration, or cleanup work that touches source-of-truth or external dependency boundaries, and you need to choose between safe internal deletion, compatibility exceptions with proven external dependencies, or confirmation-first approaches for irreversible persistent-state changes.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GanyuanRan/Aegis /tmp/anti-entropy-governance && cp -r /tmp/anti-entropy-governance/skills/anti-entropy-governance ~/.claude/skills/anti-entropy-governanceSKILL.md
# Anti-Entropy
## Overview
Use this skill when the task is not merely "change code" but "remove old paths
safely without growing entropy".
This skill chooses between:
- `delete-first` for internal code retirement
- `compat-exception` for proven external dependency boundaries
- `confirmation-first` for irreversible state or an external contract whose
distributed consumers cannot be observed
It does not replace `brainstorming`, `writing-plans`,
`systematic-debugging`, or `verification-before-completion`. It is a narrow
governance owner for retirement, fallback collapse, duplicate-owner cleanup,
and deletion safety.
## When to Use
Use when any of these are true:
- old logic, duplicate owners, or stale fallbacks should be retired
- a candidate fix is "delete old path" vs "add another fallback"
- internal keyword / phrase / trigger logic is being replaced by structured logic
- a new canonical owner exists and the old owner may still carry real behavior
- a cleanup, migration, or deprecation task touches schema, persistence,
source-of-truth, or external compatibility boundaries
- the task risks confusing code retirement with live data deletion
Do not use for:
- pure additive feature work with no retirement decision
- tiny wording edits
- simple status or read-only Q&A
- normal bug fixes that do not involve owner collapse, fallback cleanup, or
deletion choice
## Auto-Compose Boundary
This skill should be composed by other owners. It should not become a new
global hot-path entry.
Prefer composition from:
- `brainstorming` for approach selection involving retirement or persistence risk
- `writing-plans` for plans that delete old paths or touch schema / migration /
persistence
- `systematic-debugging` when the tempting fix is fallback growth or
delete-vs-retain
- `verification-before-completion` for cleanup / retirement / compatibility /
migration closeout
Load automatically when the task touches owner collapse, fallback removal, or schema/persistence/source-of-truth boundaries. Automatic loading identifies and advises only; destructive execution still requires explicit scoped user confirmation.
## Core Principle
Default to reducing internal entropy, not preserving internal history.
Retirement is responsibility-scoped before it is carrier-scoped. Name the
obsolete or duplicated authority first. If the same carrier has a separately
evidenced legitimate role, remove the invalid responsibility and keep only
that role-scoped capability; this is not a compatibility exception. Apply
`delete-first` to the carrier once no legitimate responsibility remains.
Unknown consumers alone still do not justify retaining an internal carrier.
Use this rule:
- internal code retirement -> `delete-first`
- external compatibility boundary -> `compat-exception` with active dependency
evidence; `confirmation-first` when distribution is proven but consumers
cannot be observed
- persistent-state or irreversible source-of-truth object ->
`confirmation-first`
Unknown alone neither proves an external dependency nor blocks internal
`delete-first`. Once distribution is proven, unobservable consumers also do not
prove deletion safe: inspect read-only and require scoped post-disclosure
confirmation before editing.
Mentioning, loading, or discussing destructive-action rules never authorizes
destructive execution. Without explicit scoped user confirmation:
- no irreversible deletion is executed
- no destructive tool call is made
- no runnable destructive command is emitted as the next action
- no broad assent is reinterpreted as deletion approval
## Deletion Classes
Classify the deletion target first:
- `code-retirement`
- source code
- internal triggers
- duplicate owners
- stale fallback branches
- compat-only carriers
- dead tests/config tied to removed internal behavior
- `contract-carrying code`
- schema definition files
- migration files
- public API contract code
- host install/discovery code
- persistence read/write logic
- `live-state mutation surface`
- code or commands that would mutate live databases, object stores, queues,
or other persistent state
- `derived-state`
- rebuildable caches
- generated indexes
- temporary exports
- recomputable artifacts
- `persistent-state`
- live database tables / columns / rows
- source-of-truth object storage files
- user records
- permission / identity / membership records
- audit / billing / irreversible business records
- non-rebuildable queue or event contents
## Default Path By Class
- `code-retirement` -> `delete-first`
- `contract-carrying code` -> classify by the Core Principle; internal-only
retirement uses `delete-first` with high-risk verification
- `live-state mutation surface` -> inspect and classify; destructive execution
still requires confirmation when it reaches persistent-state
- `derived-state` -> verify rebuildability first, then decide
- `persistent-state` -> `confirmation-first`
## Hard Stops
If the target is `persistent-state` or another irreversible source-of-truth
object:
- do not execute deletion automatically
- do not emit a runnable destructive command as the next action
- do not call a destructive tool
- do not interpret generic agreement as confirmation
- ask for explicit scoped user confirmation
- request backup / rollback / migration note when relevant
Examples that require confirmation:
- `DROP TABLE`
- `DROP COLUMN`
- `TRUNCATE`
- bulk delete of real business data
- deleting source-of-truth uploaded files
- deleting permission, identity, audit, billing, or membership records
- purging non-rebuildable queues or event streams
## Data Destruction Guard
When `confirmation-first` protects persistent-state or an irreversible
source-of-truth object, stop normal retirement flow and emit:
```text
Data Destruction Guard:
- Target Class:
- Exact Target(s):
- Environment:
- Why Irreversible:
- Backup / Rollback Note:
- Allowed Read-Only Next Steps:
- Blocke|
Deprecated - use the aegis:brainstorming skill instead
Deprecated - use the aegis:executing-plans skill instead
Deprecated - use the aegis:writing-plans skill instead
Use when defining ambiguous or high-complexity new features, product behavior, UI/component design, architecture choices, contract changes, or when grilling/pressure-testing a plan or design. Routine small requests stay on the fast path.
Use when the user asks for caveman mode, fewer tokens, brief responses, compressed communication, or otherwise explicitly requests a much shorter answer.
Use when facing 2+ independent tasks without a written plan, with no shared state or sequential dependencies, where parallel delegation beats inline cost; otherwise inline. Planned tasks use subagent-driven-development.
Use when the user asks to establish shared project language, or project work exposes a conflicting, renamed, or deprecated domain term that needs active semantic modeling. Routine small tasks stay on the fast path.