checking-constitutional-alignment

name	checking-constitutional-alignment
description	Verifies features and decisions align with project constitution. Use when evaluating new features, resolving design conflicts, or ensuring constitutional compliance.

Check Constitutional Alignment

Purpose

The defining-constitution exists to prevent:

• Scope creep from "interesting but misaligned" features
• Violations of core design values
• Decisions that contradict established principles
• Accumulation of inconsistent patterns

This skill provides systematic, documented evaluation using the project's own decision framework.

When to Use

Invoke this skill:

• Before creating specifications for new features
• During feature discussions when user proposes new work
• When reviewing PRs that introduce significant changes
• Before roadmap updates that add new phases/features
• When uncertain whether something fits the project

Evaluation Process

Phase 1: Read the Constitution

Load constitutional principles:

cat .wrangler/CONSTITUTION.md

Extract key information:

1. North Star Mission: What is the core purpose?
2. Core Principles: List all principles (typically 3-7)
3. Decision Framework: What questions must be answered?
4. Anti-patterns: What explicitly should NOT be done?

Store mentally for application in next phases.

Phase 2: Understand the Proposal

Gather complete picture of proposed feature:

Ask clarifying questions if needed:

• "What problem does this solve for users?"
• "Who benefits from this feature?"
• "What's the simplest version of this that provides value?"
• "Are there existing features that already solve this?"
• "What would happen if we didn't build this?"

Document proposal clearly:

## Proposal Summary

**Feature**: [Name/title]

**Description**: [What it does in 2-3 sentences]

**User Value**: [Problem it solves]

**Scope**: [What's included/excluded]

**Alternatives Considered**: [Other approaches, if any]

Phase 3: Apply Decision Framework

The defining-constitution has a decision framework (5 standard questions).

For EACH question, provide detailed analysis:

Question 1: Constitutional Alignment

"Does this align with our core principles?"

Process:

1. List each principle from defining-constitution
2. For each principle, analyze alignment:
   • ✅ Aligns: How this feature supports the principle
   • ❌ Conflicts: How this feature violates the principle
   • ⚠️ Neutral: Principle doesn't apply to this feature

Example analysis:

### Principle 1: Simplicity Over Features

**Assessment**: ❌ **Conflicts**

**Reasoning**: This feature adds 12 new configuration options, violating the principle "Prefer convention over configuration." The defining-constitution explicitly lists "configuration for every possible option" as an anti-pattern.

**Relevant Quote**: "Delete code before adding configuration options" - This adds configuration instead of removing it.

### Principle 2: Privacy by Default

**Assessment**: ✅ **Aligns**

**Reasoning**: Feature requires explicit user consent before data collection, following the "opt-in, not opt-out" principle. Aligns with anti-pattern "Collecting data without clear user benefit."

**Relevant Quote**: "Users MUST explicitly enable telemetry" - This feature follows that pattern.

Repeat for all principles.

Question 2: User Value

"Does this solve a real user problem?"

Criteria:

• Evidence of user pain (GitHub issues, support tickets, user feedback)
• Clear user benefit (what gets better/faster/easier)
• NOT just "nice to have" or "might be useful someday"

Analysis template:

### User Value Assessment

**Problem Statement**: [What user problem exists?]

**Evidence**:
- [GitHub issue #X]: 10 users requested this
- [Support tickets]: 5 tickets per week about this pain point
- [User research]: 70% of users struggle with [problem]

**Benefit**:
- Users can now [action] in [time/effort savings]
- Eliminates [pain point]
- Improves [metric] by [amount]

**Score**: ✅ Strong user value / ⚠️ Speculative value / ❌ No clear value

Question 3: Simplicity

"Is this the simplest solution that works?"

Criteria:

• Can it be simpler and still solve the problem?
• Does it add essential complexity or accidental complexity?
• Could we solve this with existing features + docs?
• Is there a "boring" solution we're overlooking?

Analysis template:

### Simplicity Assessment

**Proposed Complexity**:
- [N] new API endpoints
- [N] new database tables
- [N] new configuration options
- [N] new dependencies

**Simpler Alternatives Considered**:
1. **[Alternative 1]**: [Why rejected or why this is already the simple version]
2. **[Alternative 2]**: [Why rejected]

**Justification for Complexity**:
[Explain why this complexity is essential, not accidental]

**Score**: ✅ Simplest solution / ⚠️ Could be simpler / ❌ Unnecessarily complex

Question 4: Maintainability

"Can we maintain this long-term?"

Criteria:

• Do we have expertise to maintain this?
• Will this require ongoing updates (e.g., new browser features, API changes)?
• Does this create tech debt?
• How does this affect test surface area?

Analysis template:

### Maintainability Assessment

**Ongoing Maintenance**:
- Requires expertise in: [technologies/domains]
- Expected update frequency: [how often needs changes]
- Dependencies that might break: [external APIs, libraries]
- Test coverage required: [unit/integration/e2e]

**Team Capacity**:
- Current expertise: [✅ Have it / ⚠️ Can learn / ❌ Don't have it]
- Time to maintain: [hours/week estimated]

**Tech Debt Created**:
- [Acceptable/concerning debt description]

**Score**: ✅ Maintainable / ⚠️ Requires investment / ❌ Unsustainable

Question 5: Scope

"Does this fit our mission, or is it scope creep?"

Criteria:

• Does this align with North Star mission?
• Is this core to the product or peripheral?
• Would users still want our product if we removed this?
• Is this something users expect from us, or would they be surprised?

Analysis template:

### Scope Assessment

**Mission Alignment**:
[North Star mission from defining-constitution]

**This Feature**:
- Core to mission: [Yes/No - explain why]
- User expectation: [Expected/Surprising/Delightful]
- Without this feature: [Product still viable? Yes/No]

**Scope Classification**:
- ✅ **Core**: Essential to product value proposition
- ⚠️ **Complementary**: Enhances core but not essential
- ❌ **Scope Creep**: Interesting but misaligned

**Score**: [Classification from above]

Phase 4: Check Anti-Patterns

Constitution lists explicit anti-patterns.

For each anti-pattern, check if proposal violates it:

## Anti-Pattern Check

### Anti-Pattern 1: "[Quote from defining-constitution]"

**Violation**: ✅ Yes / ❌ No

**Evidence**: [If yes, explain how proposal violates this anti-pattern]

### Anti-Pattern 2: "[Quote from defining-constitution]"

**Violation**: ✅ Yes / ❌ No

**Evidence**: [If yes, explain how]

ANY anti-pattern violation = automatic ❌

Phase 5: Review Good/Bad Examples

Constitution includes examples of good and bad compliance.

Compare proposal to examples:

## Example Comparison

### Similar to Good Example: "[Quote good example from defining-constitution]"

**Similarity**: [How proposal resembles this good example]

### Different from Bad Example: "[Quote bad example from defining-constitution]"

**Difference**: [How proposal avoids this bad pattern]

**OR**

### Concerning Similarity to Bad Example: "[Quote bad example]"

**Similarity**: [How proposal resembles this bad pattern - red flag]

Phase 6: Generate Recommendation

Based on all analysis, provide one of three recommendations:

✅ APPROVE: Proposal Aligns

Criteria for approval:

• ALL 5 decision framework questions = ✅ or mostly ✅
• NO anti-pattern violations
• Aligns with most/all principles
• Resembles good examples from defining-constitution

Output:

# Constitutional Alignment: ✅ APPROVED

## Summary

This proposal aligns with project constitutional principles and passes all decision framework criteria.

## Key Alignments

- **Principle [N]**: [How it aligns]
- **Principle [M]**: [How it aligns]

## Decision Framework Results

1. Constitutional Alignment: ✅
2. User Value: ✅
3. Simplicity: ✅
4. Maintainability: ✅
5. Scope: ✅

## Recommendation

**PROCEED** with specification and implementation.

This feature fits our mission, solves real user problems, and follows our design principles. Create specification with constitutional alignment section documenting this analysis.

## Next Steps

1. Create specification (use specification template)
2. Include this alignment analysis in Constitutional Alignment section
3. Proceed to implementation planning

⚠️ REVISE: Proposal Needs Modification

Criteria for revision:

• SOME questions = ⚠️ or ❌ but fixable
• Aligns with core principles but has concerning aspects
• No anti-pattern violations, but close to edge

Output:

# Constitutional Alignment: ⚠️ NEEDS REVISION

## Summary

This proposal has merit but needs modification to fully align with constitutional principles.

## Concerns

### [Principle/Question that scored ⚠️ or ❌]

**Issue**: [What's wrong]

**Constitutional Reference**: "[Quote relevant principle]"

**Suggested Revision**: [How to fix this concern]

## Decision Framework Results

1. Constitutional Alignment: ⚠️
2. User Value: ✅
3. Simplicity: ❌ (needs revision)
4. Maintainability: ⚠️
5. Scope: ✅

## Recommended Changes

1. **Simplify**: [Specific simplification needed]
2. **Reduce scope**: [What to cut or phase]
3. **Add safeguards**: [How to mitigate maintainability concerns]

## Revised Approach

**Suggested**: [Describe modified version that would align]

**Key Changes**:
- [Change 1]
- [Change 2]

## Next Steps

1. Discuss revisions with team
2. Update proposal to address concerns
3. Re-run constitutional alignment check on revised proposal

❌ REJECT: Proposal Does Not Align

Criteria for rejection:

• MULTIPLE questions = ❌
• Violates anti-patterns
• Conflicts with core principles
• Scope creep (doesn't fit mission)

Output:

# Constitutional Alignment: ❌ REJECTED

## Summary

This proposal does not align with project constitutional principles and should not proceed.

## Conflicts

### Principle [N]: [Name]

**Conflict**: [How proposal violates this principle]

**Constitutional Quote**: "[Quote from defining-constitution]"

**Cannot Be Resolved Because**: [Why revision won't fix this]

### Anti-Pattern Violation

**Anti-Pattern**: "[Quote anti-pattern from defining-constitution]"

**Violation**: [How proposal violates this]

## Decision Framework Results

1. Constitutional Alignment: ❌
2. User Value: ⚠️
3. Simplicity: ❌
4. Maintainability: ⚠️
5. Scope: ❌ (scope creep)

## Why This Doesn't Fit

[Explain at high level why this proposal is fundamentally misaligned with project direction]

**Mission Misalignment**: [How it doesn't serve North Star mission]

**Precedent Risk**: [What accepting this would signal]

## Alternative Approaches

Rather than this feature, consider:

1. **[Alternative 1]**: [Aligned approach that solves similar problem]
2. **[Alternative 2]**: [Different framing that fits better]

## Next Steps

1. Document this rejection for future reference (avoid revisiting)
2. If user value is real, explore aligned alternatives
3. Update roadmap changelog to note why this was rejected

Documentation

References

For detailed information, see:

• references/detailed-guide.md - Complete workflow details, examples, and troubleshooting