cargo-cult-detector

name

cargo-cult-detector

description

Audit a claim, design, process, or codebase for cargo-cult reasoning — copying the form of something that works without its mechanism, mistaking a name for understanding, or following a ritual whose original reason is gone. For each finding it names the missing mechanism the ritual is standing in for. Use when the user says "is this cargo cult", "are we doing this for a real reason", "check this for ritual thinking", "naming isn't understanding", "왜 이렇게 하는지 근거 있어", "이거 그냥 흉내내는 거 아냐", "카고 컬트인지 봐줘". Do NOT use to quiz a person (use grill-me) or to teach a concept forward (use feynman-technique).

Cargo-Cult Detector

"They follow all the apparent precepts and forms... but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land." — Cargo Cult Science

A cargo cult copies the visible form of a working thing and expects the results to follow. In engineering: the ritual that survives after its reason died, the pattern applied because "that's how it's done", the label that replaces the understanding. This skill finds those and, crucially, names what mechanism the ritual is impersonating.

What to look for

• Name-as-understanding. A term used as if invoking it explains the thing. ("It's eventually consistent." → how, and why is that acceptable here?)
• Form without mechanism. A structure copied from a context where it earned its keep, into one where nothing connects it to an outcome. (Microservices for a three-person app; a retry loop around a non-idempotent call.)
• Ritual with a dead reason. A step everyone follows and no one can justify from first cause. ("We always do X." → what breaks if we stop? If no one knows, that's the smell.)
• Ceremony as evidence. Process theater treated as proof of quality — the meeting happened, therefore the design is sound.

Workflow

1. Take the artifact (claim, design doc, diff, pipeline, decision).
2. For each notable choice, ask the landing-the-plane question: what outcome is this supposed to cause, and by what mechanism?
3. Classify: GROUNDED (mechanism is real and connected) / CARGO-CULT (form copied, mechanism absent or broken) / UNKNOWN (can't tell — needs the author to explain the causal link).
4. For every CARGO-CULT, state the missing mechanism — the real thing the ritual is standing in for — and the cheapest way to test whether it matters.

Output

A table: item | verdict (GROUNDED/CARGO-CULT/UNKNOWN) | missing mechanism | cheapest test. Then the single highest-leverage ritual to kill or justify first.

Don't fool yourself

• Not everything unfamiliar is cargo cult — some conventions are compressed hard-won reasons. UNKNOWN means "ask", not "guilty". Demand the mechanism; don't assume its absence.
• Your own favorite patterns are the ones you'll least suspect. Run the landing-the-plane question on the choices you'd defend reflexively.