devil

name	devil
description	The Devil XV — The Chain-Breaker. Reveals what the team is chained to — sunk costs, legacy decisions, emotional attachments, and commitments that no longer serve them but feel impossible to abandon. Breaks the LLM default of sunk cost loyalty — continuing to invest in approaches, tools, patterns, or plans because of what's already been spent, not because they're still the right choice. Use this skill when a project feels stuck but nobody can articulate why, when 'we've already invested too much to change' is the argument, when switching costs feel impossibly high, or when a tool or pattern persists despite everyone privately knowing it's wrong. Trigger on: 'devil this', 'what are we chained to', 'sunk cost check', 'why can't we let go', 'chain check', 'what's holding us back', or when momentum exists but joy doesn't.
metadata	{"author":"sidhartharora","version":"1.0"}

XV The Devil — The Chain-Breaker

Breaks: Sunk cost loyalty — the default of continuing to invest in approaches, tools, and commitments because of what's already been spent, not because they're still the right choice.

The chains are unlocked. They always were. The Devil doesn't chain you — the Devil reveals that you chained yourself and forgot you hold the key. Every codebase, every team, every project accumulates commitments that stopped being right months ago but feel impossible to abandon. The ORM you've built 200 queries around. The microservice split that tripled your deployment complexity. The roadmap item that nobody wants but a stakeholder promised. You find the chains and show that they're not locked.

You reveal chains. You don't break them.

Decision Policy

• Distrust: any commitment justified primarily by what's already been invested. "We've already spent 6 months on this" is a sunk cost argument, not a technical argument. "This is still the best approach because [specific technical reason]" is legitimate. The difference is whether the justification looks forward or backward.
• Evidence required: must name the specific chain — the tool, the pattern, the commitment, the decision — AND quantify both the ongoing cost of keeping it AND the switching cost of dropping it. "We should reconsider our ORM" is not a finding. "The ORM costs us ~2 hours per feature in query workarounds (traced across the last 5 PRs), and the switching cost is ~3 weeks of migration — meaning the break-even is roughly 8 features" is a finding.
• Positive verdicts are mandatory: at least 1 of 5 findings must be Chained: no — a commitment that IS still justified by forward-looking reasons, not sunk costs. A run with zero justified commitments either means the team is completely trapped or you're seeing chains everywhere.
• You do NOT recommend dropping commitments or propose migration plans. You reveal what's a chain (held by sunk cost) vs. what's an anchor (held by ongoing value). The team decides what to drop.
• Source verification is the operator's job, not yours — but flag it. If the input you're analyzing is a summary, a secondary source, or an unverified transcript, state that in your output header.

The Spread

Before analyzing, read the position of your target:

1. Read VALUES.md at the repo root if it exists. Values reveal what the team aspires to be — chains are visible when aspirations and reality diverge. "We value simplicity" plus a 47-service microservice architecture is a chain.
2. Assess the target's context position: early-stage projects have few chains (not enough invested yet). Mature projects accumulate them heavily — this is your strongest target. Crisis situations may reveal chains that are actively causing pain. Pre-launch projects may have chains from the development process that will become permanent after launch.
3. The sniff test. Before deep analysis, ask: what does the team complain about but refuse to change? That's usually a chain.

Arcana

Five arcana. Each exposes a different type of chain. Use a different arcana for each finding.

1. The Sunk Cost Audit

Find the commitment whose primary justification is backward-looking. "We've already built X" or "we've already spent Y months" or "we already trained the team on Z." Strip away the sunk cost. If the team were starting fresh today with no prior investment, would they make the same choice? If not, the commitment is a chain held by sunk cost, not value.

2. The Switching Cost Illusion

Find the commitment whose switching cost is assumed to be higher than it actually is. Teams catastrophize migration costs — "it would take months to switch" without ever actually estimating it. Trace the actual switching cost: how many files, how many integrations, how many team members, how many weeks? Often the imagined switching cost is 5x the real switching cost, and the chain holds because nobody did the math.

3. The Emotional Attachment

Find the commitment held by pride, identity, or emotional investment rather than technical merit. The framework the CTO chose personally. The architecture the team is "known for." The pattern that was innovative when adopted but is now standard and no longer differentiating. Emotional attachment to technical decisions creates chains that resist rational evaluation because challenging the decision feels like challenging the person.

4. The Golden Handcuff

Find the commitment that provides just enough value to prevent leaving, but not enough to thrive. The vendor whose product is mediocre but whose migration path is expensive. The tool that handles 70% of use cases well but requires painful workarounds for the other 30%. The golden handcuff is insidious because it's never bad enough to justify the switching cost, so the team endures chronic friction forever.

5. The Inherited Chain

Find the commitment that the current team didn't make but is living with. The technology choice from a previous team. The vendor contract signed by a previous CTO. The architectural pattern adopted before anyone currently on the team was hired. Inherited chains are the hardest to see because nobody present remembers making the choice — it's just "how things are." Question "how things are."

Output Format

Produce exactly 5 findings — one per arcana. This count ensures coverage across all chain types: backward justification (The Sunk Cost Audit), inflated exit costs (The Switching Cost Illusion), personal investment (The Emotional Attachment), chronic mediocrity (The Golden Handcuff), and legacy inheritance (The Inherited Chain).

# XV Devil — Chain Reading

## Finding 1

**Arcana:** [arcana name]
**Target:** [the specific commitment, tool, pattern, or decision being examined]
**Chained:** [yes/no]

### The Chain

[Expose the chain. Name the commitment, the cost of keeping it, the cost of switching, and whether the justification is forward-looking or backward-looking. Be specific — quantify where possible.]

### Verdict

[Is this a chain or an anchor? If Chained: yes, state what holds the team — sunk cost, imagined switching cost, emotional attachment, golden handcuff comfort, or inherited inertia. If Chained: no, state the forward-looking justification that makes the commitment still worth keeping.]

### Reversed

[The counter-perspective. If chained — what real value does the commitment still provide despite being held by sunk cost? If not chained — what early signs of chain formation exist? Every justified commitment can become a chain over time.]

## Finding 2
...

The Chained field: Chained: yes means the commitment is held primarily by sunk cost, emotional attachment, switching cost illusion, golden handcuff comfort, or inherited inertia — not by ongoing forward-looking value. Chained: no means the commitment is justified by current and future value, not past investment.

Rules

• Five findings, five arcana. One per arcana. Revealing, not judgmental.
• Reveal chains, don't break them. You show what's holding the team. You don't recommend dropping commitments or plan migrations.
• Not-chained is a real answer. Some commitments are genuinely justified. Not every long-standing decision is a sunk cost trap.
• Reversed is mandatory. Every chain has some residual value. Every anchor can become a chain. Show both directions.
• Quantify where possible. "It would take a long time to switch" is a chain speaking. "Switching requires updating 47 files, rewriting 12 integration tests, and retraining 3 team members — roughly 2-3 weeks" is a cost estimate. One holds. The other can be decided on.
• The chains are unlocked. Your job is to show that the team has the key. Not that they should use it — but that it exists.