Ranked delete-list over code that works and should not exist - reinvented stdlib, one-implementation abstractions, dead flexibility, config nobody sets
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add crenshawdev/cadence --skill cad-minimalism-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Cad Minimalism Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/crenshawdev-cad-minimalism-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: cad-minimalism-review
description: "Ranked delete-list over code that works and should not exist - reinvented stdlib, one-implementation abstractions, dead flexibility, config nobody sets"
argument-hint: "[path | directory | phase number]"
allowed-tools:
- Read
- Bash
- Glob
- Grep
- Task
- AskUserQuestion
---
<objective>
Ask whether the code the user names needs to exist, rather than whether it
works. The capability lives entirely in
cadence-core/workflows/minimalism-review.md: the base `cad-reviewer` is
dispatched with a minimalism instruction that retargets its subject off
correctness and onto four species of over-building - reinvented standard library
or dependency, an abstraction with one implementation, dead flexibility nothing
exercises, and config nobody sets - and the list comes back in the review
subsystem's shared findings schema, with `severity` carrying the rank.
This pass APPLIES NOTHING. The delete-list is input to the user's decision: no
file is edited, deleted, staged or committed, and there is no fix arm to skip.
It is a manual, on-demand entry point only - it never auto-fires, and there is
no wiring, no gate and no verdict behind it, because a delete-list cannot PASS
or FAIL anything.
</objective>
<execution_context>
@${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/cadence-core/workflows/minimalism-review.md
</execution_context>
<process>
1. **Resolve the target** from `$ARGUMENTS` - a path, a directory, or a phase
number whose committed range is the target. If `$ARGUMENTS` is empty or
resolves to more than one of those, ask once (ask-user seam). A target that
does not resolve STOPS the run rather than widening to its parent.
2. **Run the workflow** end-to-end: bracket and dispatch the one `cad-reviewer`
worker at the session default, then close its bracket the moment the findings
are in hand - as a checkpoint when the dispatch came back unusable, which
reports NO list rather than an empty one.
3. **Present** the delete-list ranked by `severity`, each entry carrying the
reviewer's own `file`, `line`, `claim` and `failure_scenario` unedited; a
clean sweep is reported as a result naming the target that was read, never as
a bare "no findings". Do NOT delete, edit or apply any of it - the user
decides what goes and does it themselves.
</process>
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!