Overengineering review

Overengineering Review

Review only for unnecessary complexity. This skill does not hunt general correctness issues unless they directly affect the simplification recommendation.

Pair With

• Use minimal-diff-builder when the user wants the simplification findings turned into the smallest correct patch.
• Use complexity-optimizer instead when the real question is performance or algorithmic cost rather than architectural bloat.
• Use architecture-deepening-review instead when the code is not overbuilt but the boundary design is still wrong.

Review Surface

Look for:

• needless abstractions;
• replaceable dependencies;
• dead flexibility;
• wrappers around stdlib or native platform features;
• local helpers or files that only forward to something simpler;
• speculative extension points with one caller or one implementation.

Findings Taxonomy

Use these tags:

• delete: code or layer can disappear entirely.
• stdlib: custom logic should be replaced by a standard-library primitive.
• native: use built-in platform behavior instead of app code or dependency code.
• existing-dep: repo already ships a dependency that makes the extra code unnecessary.
• yagni: speculative abstraction or configurability with no present payoff.
• shrink: same behavior, fewer moving parts.

Workflow

1. Determine scope:
   • diff review;
   • file review;
   • broad repo audit.
2. Ignore style nitpicks that do not reduce real complexity.
3. Rank findings by payoff:
   • dependency removal;
   • file/layer deletion;
   • abstraction collapse;
   • line-count shrink.
4. For each finding, capture:
   • location;
   • tag;
   • what is overbuilt;
   • what replaces it;
   • why the simpler path still covers the requirement;
   • any safety caveat.
5. Keep findings review-grade:
   • specific;
   • actionable;
   • minimal prose;
   • no vague "this feels complex" commentary.

Output Format

One finding per line in ranked order:

<file>:L<line> <tag> <what to cut>. <replacement>. <why it still covers the need>.

End with one compact summary line:

net: -<N> lines, -<M> files, -<K> deps possible.

If nothing meaningful should be cut:

Lean already. Ship.

Boundaries

• Do not recommend deleting trust-boundary validation, security checks, accessibility basics, or data-loss prevention.
• Do not turn the review into a broad bug hunt.
• Do not apply changes unless the user explicitly asks for implementation after review.
• Treat one focused regression test or self-check as acceptable minimum discipline, not bloat.

Final Report

When a normal prose review is needed, convert the ranked list into:

• findings ordered by impact;
• top simplification opportunities;
• residual caveats where the simpler path only works under current scope.