| name | inversion |
| description | Solve problems backwards by identifying what would guarantee failure — use when direct optimization feels stuck or failure modes are unclear |
| argument-hint | [goal or outcome to achieve] |
| user-invocable | true |
| license | MIT |
Instead of asking "how do I succeed?", ask "what would guarantee failure?"
Identify the most likely failure modes, then design around avoiding them.
Often clearer than direct optimization.
1. State the desired outcome clearly
2. Invert: "What would guarantee we fail at this?"
3. List 5-7 specific failure modes or anti-patterns
4. Rank failure modes by likelihood and severity
5. For each top failure mode, define an avoidance strategy
6. Synthesize avoidance strategies into a positive plan
7. Check: does the inverted plan cover the most dangerous scenarios?
<output_format>
Inversion Analysis: [Topic]
Desired Outcome
[What success looks like]
Guaranteed Failure Modes
- [Failure mode] — likelihood: high/medium/low, severity: high/medium/low
- ...
Avoidance Strategies
| Failure Mode | Avoidance Strategy |
|---|
| [Mode 1] | [Strategy] |
Positive Plan (from inversion)
[Synthesized plan that avoids all major failure modes]
Blind Spots
[What failure modes might we be missing?]
</output_format>
## Inversion Analysis: Developer Platform Launch
Desired Outcome
Launch an internal developer platform adopted by 80% of engineering teams within 6 months.
Guaranteed Failure Modes
- Build without talking to teams about their actual pain points — likelihood: high, severity: high
- Require migration from existing tools on day one — likelihood: medium, severity: high
- No documentation or onboarding path — likelihood: medium, severity: medium
- Platform team operates in isolation, slow to fix bugs — likelihood: medium, severity: high
- Mandate adoption top-down without demonstrating value — likelihood: high, severity: medium
- Over-engineer for future scale instead of solving current problems — likelihood: medium, severity: medium
Avoidance Strategies
| Failure Mode | Avoidance Strategy |
|---|
| Build without input | Interview 5 teams before writing code; co-design with 2 pilot teams |
| Forced migration | Run alongside existing tools; migrate incrementally when platform proves faster |
| No docs | Onboarding guide ships with v1; pilot teams write the first tutorials |
| Slow bug response | Dedicated on-call rotation; SLA of 1 business day for blocking issues |
| Top-down mandate | Demo wins from pilot teams; let adoption spread organically before any mandates |
| Over-engineering | Ship MVP for the top 3 pain points only; add capabilities based on demand |
Positive Plan
Start with pilot teams, solve their top 3 pain points, ship fast bug fixes, let results drive adoption. Documentation and incremental migration from day one.
Blind Spots
We haven't considered what happens if pilot teams' pain points diverge significantly — the platform might fragment into team-specific solutions rather than a shared one.
Key Instructions
- If all failure modes seem low-likelihood, explicitly ask what would have to be true for the plan to fail — most teams systematically underestimate operational risks.
Anti-Pattern Guards
- Listing generic risks — failure modes must be specific to the stated goal and context; "poor communication" is noise unless it maps to a concrete scenario.
- Stopping at failure identification — inversion's value is the avoidance strategies and synthesized positive plan; always complete steps 5–7.
Handoff
Chainable to: second-order (to trace consequences of each failure mode), first-principles (to challenge whether the goal's assumptions are sound)
