Via Negativa
Improve by subtraction before addition. Prefer removing harm, waste, and nonessential complexity; add only when a demonstrated need remains after removal candidates are exhausted.
When to Use
- About to add a feature, abstraction, dependency, process, or control to fix a problem.
- Simplifying a system or workflow where complexity is the tax.
- Prioritizing by deciding what not to keep, build, or maintain.
- Performance or reliability work where eliminating a bad path beats bolting on mitigation.
When NOT to Use
- Load-bearing controls: auth, validation, tests, rate limits, retries, safety checks — presume necessary until proven dead.
- A demonstrated requirement that cannot be met by removal or simplification.
- Aesthetic minimalism without evidence of non-use or net harm.
- Irreversible deletion without a rollback path when impact is unknown.
Procedure
- Pause the add reflex. State the goal and the proposed addition in one line.
- Ask the subtraction question first. List what could be removed or stopped to achieve the same goal with less surface area.
- Catalog candidates with evidence. Prefer unused, redundant, high-cost/low-value, or harmful elements. Require usage, call-graph, metrics, or experiment evidence — not taste.
- Apply the irreversibility guard. Classify reversible vs hard-to-restore; identify dependents; refuse deleting unproven mystery guards. Plan staged removal or flag when risk is non-trivial.
- Remove the safest high-value candidate first. Subtract, monitor, and verify absence of needed behavior before the next removal.
- Add only if the goal still fails. If subtraction cannot meet the need, add the minimum change and record why removal was insufficient.
- Stop when the goal is met by absence, or remaining candidates fail the irreversibility/evidence bar and a minimal addition is justified.
Stop condition: Goal achieved via removal, or residual need documented after evidence-backed subtraction failed.
Output
Goal: <desired outcome>
Proposed add (if any): <thing>
Removal candidates: <element — evidence — risk — reversible?>
Action: remove <X> | staged remove <X> | add minimal <Y> because <why removal failed>
Verification plan: <how absence/success is checked>
Do-not-touch: <load-bearing items preserved>
Verification
- Falsify if something was deleted without non-use/harm evidence, or a safety control was removed as "complexity."
- Falsify if an addition shipped without a prior subtraction pass on the same goal.
- Over-application guard: do not delete for line-count or purity when the element is load-bearing or the need is demonstrated.
1---2name: thinking-via-negativa3description: Use when the reflex is to add a feature, layer, or process. Prefer removing harmful or nonessential elements first, with an irreversibility guard before deletion.4---5
6# Via Negativa
7
8Improve by subtraction before addition. Prefer removing harm, waste, and nonessential complexity; add only when a demonstrated need remains after removal candidates are exhausted.
9
10## When to Use
11
12- About to add a feature, abstraction, dependency, process, or control to fix a problem.
13- Simplifying a system or workflow where complexity is the tax.
14- Prioritizing by deciding what not to keep, build, or maintain.
15- Performance or reliability work where eliminating a bad path beats bolting on mitigation.
16
17## When NOT to Use
18
19- Load-bearing controls: auth, validation, tests, rate limits, retries, safety checks — presume necessary until proven dead.
20- A demonstrated requirement that cannot be met by removal or simplification.
21- Aesthetic minimalism without evidence of non-use or net harm.
22- Irreversible deletion without a rollback path when impact is unknown.
23
24## Procedure
25
261. **Pause the add reflex.** State the goal and the proposed addition in one line.
272. **Ask the subtraction question first.** List what could be removed or stopped to achieve the same goal with less surface area.
283. **Catalog candidates with evidence.** Prefer unused, redundant, high-cost/low-value, or harmful elements. Require usage, call-graph, metrics, or experiment evidence — not taste.
294. **Apply the irreversibility guard.** Classify reversible vs hard-to-restore; identify dependents; refuse deleting unproven mystery guards. Plan staged removal or flag when risk is non-trivial.
305. **Remove the safest high-value candidate first.** Subtract, monitor, and verify absence of needed behavior before the next removal.
316. **Add only if the goal still fails.** If subtraction cannot meet the need, add the minimum change and record why removal was insufficient.
327. **Stop** when the goal is met by absence, or remaining candidates fail the irreversibility/evidence bar and a minimal addition is justified.
33
34**Stop condition:** Goal achieved via removal, or residual need documented after evidence-backed subtraction failed.
35
36## Output
37
38```text
39Goal: <desired outcome>
40Proposed add (if any): <thing>
41Removal candidates: <element — evidence — risk — reversible?>
42Action: remove <X> | staged remove <X> | add minimal <Y> because <why removal failed>
43Verification plan: <how absence/success is checked>
44Do-not-touch: <load-bearing items preserved>
45```
46
47## Verification
48
49- Falsify if something was deleted without non-use/harm evidence, or a safety control was removed as "complexity."
50- Falsify if an addition shipped without a prior subtraction pass on the same goal.
51- Over-application guard: do not delete for line-count or purity when the element is load-bearing or the need is demonstrated.
gabrielmoreira