hai-razor

name

hai-razor

description

Audits whether each requirement, workflow step, role, field, state, module, layer, abstraction, or rule deserves to exist and returns a razor verdict: a Keep/Merge/Defer/Delete/Replace/Prove-first classification of every concept, the strongest survival argument for anything cut, and a concrete cut/proof list. Use whenever the user wants to apply Occam's razor, simplify or trim a PRD / architecture / workflow / data model / state machine, challenge whether something is necessary, or spot fake requirements, premature abstractions, or over-engineering — even if they never say "razor." Trigger on 用奥卡姆剃刀, 剃刀一下, 砍需求, 砍掉没用的东西, 收一收复杂度, 这个字段/状态/模块/分层有必要吗, 这个抽象是不是多余, 是不是伪需求, 是不是过度设计, 这步能不能去掉, 这些角色/状态是不是太多了, and English like "is this over-engineered", "do we really need this layer", "this feels bloated, what can we delete", "too many fields".

Hai Razor

For Chinese readers, see SKILL.zh_CN.md. The English SKILL.md is the execution source of truth.

Overview

Audit the existence of product requirements, workflow steps, data fields, states, modules, layers, abstractions, service boundaries, and design choices, then classify each as Keep/Merge/Defer/Delete/Replace/Prove-first with evidence. The goal is not a smaller system — see Core Principle for the bar a concept must clear.

Core Principle

Every concept must earn its existence.

A thing deserves to exist only when removing it would break a real goal, erase a real distinction, hide an important risk, or push unavoidable complexity onto a worse owner. If a concept survives only because of habit, fear, symmetry, imagined future needs, or aesthetic completeness, cut it, merge it, defer it, or demand proof. Cutting real distinctions, safety, observability, permissions, migration paths, or a deep module that hides genuine complexity is not simplification — it is damage.

Razor Targets

Audit anything that claims a separate existence. The existence question is the lens for each type.

Target	Existence question
Requirement	What user, business, operator, or maintainer pain proves this is needed?
Workflow step	What decision, transformation, or risk does this step own?
Role	What capability or responsibility is unique to this actor?
Field	What behavior, decision, audit, or invariant depends on this data?
State	What transition, permission, recovery path, or user meaning requires this state?
Module	What complexity does this module hide from callers?
Layer	What boundary does this layer protect, translate, or stabilize?
Abstraction	What family of variation exists now, and what must callers no longer know?
Rule	What failure, conflict, or decision would become ambiguous without it?

Classify Each Concept

After running the deletion test and finding the hidden owner (Workflow steps 4-5), assign every concept exactly one verdict.

Decision	Use when
Keep	It carries irreducible responsibility, protects correctness, hides real complexity, or preserves a needed distinction.
Merge	It has some value, but not enough independent meaning to justify its own name, module, field, state, or step.
Defer	It may become necessary, but current evidence is too weak and adding it now creates ballast.
Delete	It does not protect a goal, invariant, decision, or meaningful distinction.
Replace	The responsibility is real, but the current shape is the wrong owner, boundary, name, or mechanism.
Prove first	The concept may be necessary, but evidence is missing and the cost or risk is nontrivial.

Workflow

1. Name the chain being cut. State the scope (PRD section, feature flow, data model, module boundary, architecture chain, or implementation plan), the current goal it claims to serve, and list every concept asking for independent existence.

2. Gather evidence before judgment. Review the PRDs, docs, code, schemas, traces, tests, metrics, user flows, support cases, or decision records that bear on each concept. Separate evidence from inference — if a claim is plausible but unproven, label it an assumption or "prove first." Prefer concrete evidence about current behavior over imagined future extensibility. Every keep/cut/merge/defer/replace verdict needs a reason grounded in evidence, or an explicit statement that evidence is missing.

3. Map the current chain when the cut is structural. If the recommendation changes a substantial workflow, process, module chain, state machine, service boundary, or architecture flow, include before/after Mermaid diagrams — because a structural cut silently relocates responsibility, and a reviewer needs to see who now owns it. The before diagram shows existing actors, modules, steps, state/data flow, and where complexity currently lives; the after diagram shows what is deleted, merged, deferred, or moved, and who absorbs the rest. Skip diagrams only for small local audits where a table is clearer than a flow map.

4. Run the deletion test. For each concept ask: if this disappears, what concretely breaks? Distinguish "something feels less complete" from "a user goal, invariant, operation, safety property, or decision fails." If nothing breaks, the concept is suspect.

5. Find the hidden owner. If the concept is removed, who must absorb its responsibility? If it moves to a worse place, the concept may deserve to stay. If an existing concept can absorb it with less cognitive load, merge it.

6. Classify each concept using the decision table above. Give every concept exactly one verdict with its reason.

7. Protect necessary complexity. Explicitly name what should not be cut: complexity that prevents invalid states, secures trust boundaries, supports recovery, improves observability, or hides implementation behind a deep interface.

8. Attack the remaining design. Ask how future builders would reintroduce the deleted concept, and whether the cut creates hidden coupling, vague ownership, migration risk, or unclear acceptance. Add a guardrail: naming, test, doc boundary, acceptance criterion, architecture note, or follow-up proof.

9. Emit an HTML artifact for full audits. Path: /tmp/hai-razor-<slug>/index.html. After the Markdown answer, write a restrained, scannable report covering the verdict, evidence, before/after diagrams, Razor Map, cut/merge list, preserved complexity, risks, guardrails, and next steps. Skip it for a small local audit where HTML adds more ceremony than value, and say why. When one is written, return its absolute path.

Output

Read references/output-template.md before finalizing. The answer must contain, at minimum:

• A razor verdict for the reviewed scope, the stated razor principle used, and an explicit not-audited scope (to prevent mis-cutting).
• An evidence table, or a clear statement that evidence is missing.
• A classification table mapping each concept to Keep / Merge / Defer / Delete / Replace / Prove first, with the strongest survival argument for anything cut.
• The complexity that must be preserved.
• A concrete cut list or prove-first list, plus risks and guardrails.

For full audits, also produce the HTML report per Workflow step 9. Before/after Mermaid diagrams are required whenever the recommendation changes a substantial workflow, process, module chain, state machine, service boundary, or architecture flow.

Use a different skill when

• The target is a requirement document or product scope — use hai-prd.
• The target is module boundaries, dependency direction, or abstraction depth — use hai-architecture.
• The question is whether the whole idea is worth doing at all — use hai-idea.
• The user wants the cuts turned into an execution plan — use hai-goal.

Common Mistakes

• Cutting a concept because it is large, not because it is unnecessary.
• Treating "future extensibility" as evidence without naming the expected variation.
• Replacing a visible concept with a hidden convention and calling that simplification.
• Keeping a concept only because it has a name, a file, a meeting, or an owner.