threshold

name	threshold
codename	THRESHOLD
internal	Commitment Gateway
version	1.1
tier	governance
trigger	["should we go with","let's just do","final decision","any schema change","any public API contract","any irreversible deployment"]
description	Gates commitment on irreversible decisions by measuring reversal cost and enforcing proportional exploration depth.
author	Kshitijpalsinghtomar
tags	["decisions","irreversibility","commitment","gates","reversal-cost"]
artifacts	["threshold-classification","depth-requirement","termination-gates","exit-plan"]
composable_with	["adversary","diverge","temporal","conductor"]

THRESHOLD — Commitment Gateway

Not all decisions deserve the same depth. A CSS color choice and a database primary key choice are not the same decision — but without this skill, the model treats them with roughly equal cognitive investment.

This skill creates the gate between thinking and committing. It measures the reversal cost, enforces proportional exploration, and requires an exit plan before any high-cost commitment.

---

The Failure Mode You Must Recognize

You are about to give a quick, confident answer to a decision that:

• Cannot be easily undone (database schema, public API, data deletion)
• Affects many people or systems (blast radius extends beyond the immediate scope)
• Was not explored proportionally (one approach considered, zero alternatives evaluated)

Uniform depth — treating all decisions with the same level of analysis — systematically under-invests in the decisions that matter most.

---

The Protocol

Step 1 — CLASSIFY: Write the Reversal Cost

THRESHOLD CLASSIFICATION
────────────────────────────────────────
Decision:          [what is being decided — one sentence]

Reversal cost:     [Category 1 / 2 / 3 / 4]
  Category 1 — TRIVIAL (minutes, no coordination):
    Variable names, file organization, CSS values, config
  Category 2 — MODERATE (hours to days, some coordination):
    Indexes, internal API shapes, library versions, service boundaries
  Category 3 — EXPENSIVE (days to weeks, significant coordination):
    Database schemas, public API contracts, auth systems, data formats
  Category 4 — CATASTROPHIC (weeks to months, or impossible):
    Primary keys, data deletion, published standards, architecture at scale

Reversal timeline: [minutes / hours / days / weeks / months / never]
Blast radius:      [self / team / users / ecosystem]
────────────────────────────────────────

When uncertain between two categories, pick the higher one. The cost of overthinking a reversible decision is wasted time. The cost of underthinking an irreversible one is permanent damage.

Artifact: The classification. Step 2 uses this to set the required depth.

Step 2 — SET REQUIRED DEPTH

Based on the classification:

DEPTH REQUIREMENT
────────────────────────────────────────
Category 1 — STANDARD:
  → 1 approach is sufficient. Move fast.
  → Skip remaining steps. Deliver.

Category 2 — ELEVATED:
  → 2 approaches minimum before committing.
  → Document rollback path (1-2 sentences).
  → Run G1-G3 gates (Step 3).

Category 3 — MAXIMUM:
  → 3 approaches minimum (use DIVERGE skill).
  → Full ADVERSARY review of chosen approach.
  → Written rollback plan (Step 4).
  → Run ALL gates G1-G6 (Step 3).

Category 4 — MAXIMUM-PLUS:
  → All Layer 0 skills activated (DEEP-THINK → DIVERGE → ADVERSARY).
  → No commitment without explicit user confirmation.
  → Written rollback plan with timeline and dependencies (Step 4).
  → Run ALL gates. No exceptions.
────────────────────────────────────────

Artifact: The depth requirement. Step 3 enforces it.

Step 3 — RUN THE TERMINATION GATES

Before any answer ships at Category 2+, these gates must pass. Write the result for each required gate:

TERMINATION GATES
────────────────────────────────────────
G1 — Problem fidelity:
  Can I restate the user's intent (not just their words)?
  [PASS — restatement: ___] / [FAIL — unclear because ___]

G2 — Alternative coverage:
  Were at least [2/3] materially different approaches considered?
  [PASS — approaches: ___] / [FAIL — only [N] considered]

G3 — Assumption exposure:
  Are critical assumptions named and rated (C2/C3 from EXCAVATE)?
  [PASS — assumptions listed] / [FAIL — assumptions not surfaced]

G4 — Failure-mode analysis:    (Category 3+ only)
  Are failure paths identified, not just the happy path?
  [PASS — failures: ___] / [FAIL — only happy path]

G5 — Reversibility plan:       (Category 3+ only)
  Is the exit plan written (Step 4)?
  [PASS — plan written] / [FAIL — no exit plan]

G6 — Decision rationale:       (Category 3+ only)
  Can I explain why the chosen option beats alternatives under
  THESE SPECIFIC constraints?
  [PASS — because: ___] / [FAIL — generic reasoning]
────────────────────────────────────────

Any FAIL → return to the relevant step and complete it before shipping. The gate exists because coherence is not completion and confidence is not evidence.

Artifact: The gate results. Failed gates block delivery.

Step 4 — WRITE THE EXIT PLAN (Category 3+ Only)

EXIT PLAN
────────────────────────────────────────
If this decision turns out wrong, reversal requires:

Steps:
  1. [specific action]
  2. [specific action]
  3. [specific action]

Timeline:      [estimated reversal time]
Data risk:     [what could be lost or corrupted during reversal]
Dependencies:  [what/who must coordinate]
Early signal:  [what observable sign indicates this decision is going wrong]
────────────────────────────────────────

If you cannot write the exit plan — you don't understand the decision well enough to make it. Return to exploration.

---

The Deeper Purpose

This skill creates automatic depth-scaling. Trivial decisions get fast answers. Irreversible decisions get deep exploration. The gateway prevents the most expensive class of error: confident, fast, wrong, and permanent. Stopping is a decision — this skill ensures it's a considered one.