メニュー
Understand how ideas evolved over time to find old solutions for new problems and avoid repeating past failures
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Use when starting any conversation in Trae - establishes mandatory skill activation, Trae tool mapping, and workflow priority before any response or action
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
Use when tests have arbitrary sleeps/timeouts, race conditions, flaky async behavior, or timing-dependent failures
Use after finding a root cause when adding validation at multiple layers would make the bug impossible or obvious
| name | Tracing Knowledge Lineages |
| description | Understand how ideas evolved over time to find old solutions for new problems and avoid repeating past failures |
| when_to_use | when questioning "why do we use X", before abandoning approaches, or evaluating "new" ideas that might be revivals |
| version | 1.1.0 |
Ideas have history. Understanding why we arrived at current approaches - and what was tried before - prevents repeating failures and rediscovers abandoned solutions.
Core principle: Before judging current approaches or proposing "new" ones, trace their lineage.
Trace before:
Red flags triggering lineage tracing:
Search for when/why current approach was chosen:
docs/decisions/, docs/adr/, .decisions/, architecture decision records)manage_core_memory or review known project notesgit log --all --full-history -- path/to/file)Document:
## Lineage: [Current Approach]
**When adopted:** [Date/commit]
**Why adopted:** [Original problem it solved]
**What it replaced:** [Previous approach]
**Why replaced:** [What was wrong with old approach]
**Context that drove change:** [External factors, new requirements]
When someone says "we tried X and it didn't work":
Don't assume: X is fundamentally flawed Instead trace:
Document:
## Failed Attempt: [Approach]
**When attempted:** [Timeframe]
**Why attempted:** [Original motivation]
**What failed:** [Specific failure mode]
**Why it failed:** [Root cause, not symptoms]
**Context at time:** [Constraints that existed then]
**Context now:** [What's different today]
**Worth reconsidering?:** [Yes/No + reasoning]
When evaluating "new" approaches:
Common revival patterns:
Ask: "What did we learn from the previous incarnation?"
When major architectural changes occurred:
Map the transition:
## Paradigm Shift: From [Old] to [New]
**Pre-shift thinking:** [How we thought about problem]
**Catalyst:** [What triggered the shift]
**Post-shift thinking:** [How we think now]
**What was gained:** [New capabilities]
**What was lost:** [Old capabilities sacrificed]
**Lessons preserved:** [What we kept from old paradigm]
**Lessons forgotten:** [What we might need to relearn]
Where to look for lineage:
docs/decisions/, docs/adr/, .adr/, or search for "ADR", "decision record")manage_core_memory and repository docs)git log --grep="keyword", git blame)git log -- docs/)Search patterns:
# Find when approach was introduced
git log --all --grep="introduce.*caching"
# Find what file replaced
git log --diff-filter=D --summary | grep pattern
# Find discussion of abandoned approach
git log --all --grep="remove.*websocket"
All of these mean: STOP. Trace the lineage first.
You CAN ignore lineage when:
Context fundamentally changed
We learned critical lessons
Original reasoning was flawed
But document WHY you're overriding: Future you needs to know this was deliberate, not ignorant.
When proposing changes, include lineage:
## Proposal: Switch from [Old] to [New]
### Current Approach Lineage
- **Adopted:** [When/why]
- **Replaced:** [What it replaced]
- **Worked because:** [Its strengths]
- **Struggling because:** [Current problems]
### Previous Attempts at [New]
- **Attempted:** [When, if ever]
- **Failed because:** [Why it didn't work then]
- **Context change:** [What's different now]
### Decision
[Proceed/Defer/Abandon] because [reasoning with historical context]
"We used XML before JSON. XML died because verbosity hurt developer experience. But XML namespaces solved a real problem. If we hit namespace conflicts in JSON, we should study how XML solved it, not reinvent."
"REST is old, let's use GraphQL." (Ignores: Why did REST win over SOAP? What problems does it solve well? Are those problems gone?)
"We tried client-side routing in 2010, abandoned it due to poor browser support. Now that support is universal and we have better tools, worth reconsidering with lessons learned."