Failure archaeology
Every mature codebase has a set of approaches that were tried, didn't work, and were deliberately reverted or abandoned. Without a record of them, every new contributor (human or agent) is doomed to rediscover the same dead end at the same cost. This skill is about building and using that record.
Why this is worth maintaining as its own artifact
A revert commit in history is a strong signal, but revert commits often don't explain why in the commit body itself: the reasoning lived in a conversation, a ticket, or someone's head, and is gone unless it's captured somewhere durable. The fix is a standing "settled battles" reference: one entry per abandoned approach, each with what was tried, why it failed or was reverted, and what the actual settled alternative is.
What belongs in an entry
For each settled battle:
- What was tried: concretely, not vaguely ("switched the ORM's hosting adapter to X").
- Why it failed or was reverted: the actual technical reason if known (a specific limitation, an incompatibility), or "reverted, reason not recorded; re-derive before retrying" if the reasoning is genuinely lost. Don't invent a plausible-sounding reason after the fact; an honestly-unknown reason is more useful than a fabricated one, because it tells the next reader to actually investigate rather than trust a guess.
- The settled alternative: what the codebase actually does today instead, and where to find it.
- A commit hash or reference so the claim is independently checkable, and a note that hashes/details should be re-verified before being cited, since branches move.
Categories worth keeping a battle log for
- Hosting/platform migrations that were tried and reverted. These are expensive to re-litigate because the original evaluation (cold starts, bundling incompatibilities, operational opacity) took real time to discover and is easy to forget once the codebase has moved on.
- Framework-specific footguns that don't fail until build/deploy time. Some config syntax (e.g., certain regex features in a framework's routing-matcher config) parses fine as a string but fails to compile at build time in a way that's easy to reintroduce if the constraint isn't written down anywhere near the code.
- Product/UX decisions that were reverted specifically because they weren't the engineer's call to make: a copy or behavior change that got reverted with a note like "this is a product decision, not a refactor target," independent of whether the change itself was good. The lesson here isn't about the specific change; it's that anything in this category needs the actual decision-owner's sign-off before it lands, even when it looks obviously correct.
- A feature that shipped, got reverted, and came back reshaped. Document the reshaped, currently-live version as the settled outcome, not the original attempt, so nobody re-proposes the original shape without knowing it already failed once.
- Schema/migration naming footguns: for example, a mismatch between a model's logical name and its actual mapped table/column name has, in practice, broken a migration chain more than once in the same codebase. Write down the exact rule for looking up the real physical name before hand-writing any migration SQL.
- Infrastructure teething problems that were each fixed individually but look like a pile of unrelated hacks if you don't know the underlying root cause connecting them (e.g., several container-networking symptoms that were all actually one binding/interface issue, fixed piecemeal over several commits). Document the root cause once, with pointers to where each individual fix lives, so nobody "cleans up" a fix whose purpose isn't obvious from the code alone.
How to use the archive
- Before proposing a change, check whether it matches a settled battle. If it does, read the entry, and if you still think it's worth reattempting, that's a decision for whoever owns the system, not something to silently re-attempt. The fact that it was tried before is itself information they need.
- Before deleting "weird" code, check if it's the fix for a settled battle. Code that looks unnecessarily defensive or oddly specific is disproportionately likely to be exactly that. Read any comment near it, and check the archive, before assuming it's dead weight.
- Treat a revert commit you find in history as a prompt to go looking, not as a fact you already understand. If the archive doesn't have an entry for it yet, that's a gap worth filling once you understand it.
Keeping the archive honest
An archive entry is only useful if it's trustworthy. Re-verify a cited hash or file reference before relying on it (git show <hash> --stat costs nothing and confirms the entry hasn't drifted). If digging through history turns up other settled battles not yet documented, add them. A quick sweep of git log --oneline -i --grep="revert" across a mature repo reliably turns up more of these than anyone remembers.
When not to use this
This is about already-attempted-and-abandoned approaches specifically. For "here's a bug we already root-caused, here's the fix," that's the settled-battles table inside the systematic-debugging-playbook skill: related discipline, different artifact.
1---2name: failure-archaeology3description: Use when you're about to propose something that smells like it might have already been tried and abandoned: a hosting/platform migration, a framework or library swap, a "quick fix" to code that looks deliberately unusual, or when a revert commit turns up in git history. Prevents re-litigating settled decisions and re-fighting battles someone already lost on purpose.4---56# Failure archaeology78Every mature codebase has a set of approaches that were tried, didn't work, and were deliberately reverted or abandoned. Without a record of them, every new contributor (human or agent) is doomed to rediscover the same dead end at the same cost. This skill is about building and using that record.910## Why this is worth maintaining as its own artifact1112A revert commit in history is a strong signal, but revert commits often don't explain *why* in the commit body itself: the reasoning lived in a conversation, a ticket, or someone's head, and is gone unless it's captured somewhere durable. The fix is a standing "settled battles" reference: one entry per abandoned approach, each with what was tried, why it failed or was reverted, and what the actual settled alternative is.1314## What belongs in an entry1516For each settled battle:17- **What was tried**: concretely, not vaguely ("switched the ORM's hosting adapter to X").18- **Why it failed or was reverted**: the actual technical reason if known (a specific limitation, an incompatibility), or "reverted, reason not recorded; re-derive before retrying" if the reasoning is genuinely lost. Don't invent a plausible-sounding reason after the fact; an honestly-unknown reason is more useful than a fabricated one, because it tells the next reader to actually investigate rather than trust a guess.19- **The settled alternative**: what the codebase actually does today instead, and where to find it.20- **A commit hash or reference** so the claim is independently checkable, and a note that hashes/details should be re-verified before being cited, since branches move.2122## Categories worth keeping a battle log for2324- **Hosting/platform migrations that were tried and reverted.** These are expensive to re-litigate because the original evaluation (cold starts, bundling incompatibilities, operational opacity) took real time to discover and is easy to forget once the codebase has moved on.25- **Framework-specific footguns that don't fail until build/deploy time.** Some config syntax (e.g., certain regex features in a framework's routing-matcher config) parses fine as a string but fails to compile at build time in a way that's easy to reintroduce if the constraint isn't written down anywhere near the code.26- **Product/UX decisions that were reverted specifically because they weren't the engineer's call to make**: a copy or behavior change that got reverted with a note like "this is a product decision, not a refactor target," independent of whether the change itself was good. The lesson here isn't about the specific change; it's that anything in this category needs the actual decision-owner's sign-off before it lands, even when it looks obviously correct.27- **A feature that shipped, got reverted, and came back reshaped.** Document the reshaped, currently-live version as the settled outcome, not the original attempt, so nobody re-proposes the original shape without knowing it already failed once.28- **Schema/migration naming footguns**: for example, a mismatch between a model's logical name and its actual mapped table/column name has, in practice, broken a migration chain more than once in the same codebase. Write down the exact rule for looking up the real physical name before hand-writing any migration SQL.29- **Infrastructure teething problems that were each fixed individually but look like a pile of unrelated hacks** if you don't know the underlying root cause connecting them (e.g., several container-networking symptoms that were all actually one binding/interface issue, fixed piecemeal over several commits). Document the root cause once, with pointers to where each individual fix lives, so nobody "cleans up" a fix whose purpose isn't obvious from the code alone.3031## How to use the archive3233- **Before proposing a change, check whether it matches a settled battle.** If it does, read the entry, and if you still think it's worth reattempting, that's a decision for whoever owns the system, not something to silently re-attempt. The fact that it was tried before is itself information they need.34- **Before deleting "weird" code, check if it's the fix for a settled battle.** Code that looks unnecessarily defensive or oddly specific is disproportionately likely to be exactly that. Read any comment near it, and check the archive, before assuming it's dead weight.35- **Treat a revert commit you find in history as a prompt to go looking**, not as a fact you already understand. If the archive doesn't have an entry for it yet, that's a gap worth filling once you understand it.3637## Keeping the archive honest3839An archive entry is only useful if it's trustworthy. Re-verify a cited hash or file reference before relying on it (`git show <hash> --stat` costs nothing and confirms the entry hasn't drifted). If digging through history turns up other settled battles not yet documented, add them. A quick sweep of `git log --oneline -i --grep="revert"` across a mature repo reliably turns up more of these than anyone remembers.4041## When not to use this4243This is about *already-attempted-and-abandoned* approaches specifically. For "here's a bug we already root-caused, here's the fix," that's the settled-battles table inside the systematic-debugging-playbook skill: related discipline, different artifact.
HamzaYM