# Reuse Or Replace > Re-anchor the anti-fragmentation discipline that when an established way of doing something already exists — a code idiom, structure, error-handling approach, naming shape, doc format, or process — new work REUSES that established way or openly REPLACES it (migrate the old uses, record the decision); it never silently stands up a second, parallel way alongside. Then audit the work in flight for a… - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-melodic-software-claude-code-plugins-reuse-or-replace` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [melodic-software](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/melodic-software) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [melodic-software](https://github.com/melodic-software) - **Source:** https://github.com/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins/tree/main/plugins/discipline/skills/reuse-or-replace ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-melodic-software-claude-code-plugins-reuse-or-replace ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Reuse or replace A drift corrector for anti-fragmentation discipline: one way to do a thing, not two. When an established way already exists, new work reuses it or openly replaces it — it does not add a silent second way beside it. The method — re-anchor, audit the work in flight, correct forward, report, and the tone that firing this is not an accusation — lives in [`${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/context/re-anchor-audit-correct.md`](../../context/re-anchor-audit-correct.md). Read it; this file adds only what is specific to reusing or replacing an established way rather than splitting into a parallel one. ## The discipline this re-anchors When a codebase, structure, or process already has an **established way** of doing something, new work must not silently stand up a **second, parallel way** beside it. Two coexisting ways of doing the same thing is fragmentation — it splits the reader's model, doubles the surface that drifts, and taxes every future change with a "which one?" decision. Resolve the source of truth per the method doc's ladder: if the consuming project states a consistency / one-way rule in its own `CLAUDE.md` / `.claude/rules/`, re-anchor THAT. Otherwise re-anchor this portable baseline. Facing an established way, new work has exactly **two honest options** — the two this skill is named for: - **Reuse it.** Follow the established way, so the codebase keeps one way. - **Replace it.** Openly argue the established way should change, then — if it should — *migrate* the old uses to the new way and *record* the decision. Replacement converges the codebase on the new single way. The **sin is neither of those**: it is leaving the established way in place and quietly adding a divergent way alongside it, so both now exist. That silent second way is what this skill exists to catch. ### Misconstrual guard — this is NOT "always conform" (mandatory) Reusing is **not** blind conformity, and this skill never demands straight obedience to the incumbent way. Replacing the established way is a **first-class, encouraged** move, not a deviation to be suppressed. The established way *should* be replaced when: - **evidence backs an improvement** — research or measurement shows a better way (route the evidence-gathering to `/discipline:do-your-research`); - **its rationale is missing** — nobody can say why it is done this way ("I don't know, it just is"); - **it rests on incumbency only** — "we've always done it this way" is the sole support; - **it is stale or outdated** — newer developments may have superseded it; a challenge on this ground requires *fresh* research, not recall. Blind trust in the status quo is explicitly bad: don't reuse the established way just because it is the established way. The discipline is not "never diverge" — it is "**never diverge silently**." When you replace, do it in the open and carry it through — migrate the old uses. When you reuse, reuse because the way holds up, not merely because it is there — that interrogation is `/discipline:reason-dont-recite`'s axis (below). ### The burden rule — divergence is priced by blast radius Replacing the established way (or otherwise diverging from it) is allowed, but it carries a burden: a **stated rationale**, recorded proportional to the divergence's blast radius. - **Durable or architectural** divergence — a new structural pattern, a different error-handling model, a second workflow — records its rationale where durable decisions live: the repo's ADR or docs convention. - **Small, local** divergence records it where the change is reviewed: the PR description or the commit message. - **No recorded reason at all** is the finding. An unexplained second way is fragmentation whether or not it is defensible on its merits — the burden is to say *why*, not merely to be right. ## Scope — the unlintable "approach" level This skill owns consistency of **how work is done** where judgement, not a tool, decides it: code idioms and shapes, module and file structure, naming shapes, error-handling and logging approaches, API and interface conventions, documentation formats, and process or workflow choices. **Mechanical style is out of scope** — indentation, quote style, import order, line length, and everything a formatter or linter settles deterministically belong to those tools, not to a judgement corrector. This skill fires at the level a linter cannot reach: the *approach*, not the whitespace. ## Distinct axes — the two skills this must not be confused with Firing this cleanly requires keeping it apart from two siblings; the boundaries are deliberate, not incidental. - **`/discipline:reason-dont-recite` (evaluation-side).** That skill interrogates *inherited* content — is this existing convention actually justified, or coasting on precedent? This skill is **production-side**: when *creating new work*, reuse the established way unless you state a reason to replace it. They meet at the challenge: when this skill's audit finds you *want* to replace the established way, the question "is the established way even right?" is reason-dont-recite's, and the evidence for a better way is `/discipline:do-your-research`'s. Reuse-or-replace governs the *second way*; those govern the *justification*. - **`/discipline:pick-for-the-problem` (carve-out — does NOT overlap).** That skill governs selecting a tool, library, framework, or dependency to fit the problem, and names incumbency as a *selection sin*. This skill **never governs that selection.** Consistency of idioms, structure, and process is reuse-or-replace; choosing *what tool or dependency to adopt* is pick-for-the-problem, where matching the incumbent choice can be exactly the wrong reflex. Do not apply this skill to a build-vs-buy or which-library decision — route it there. ## Audit — what to look for Name concrete, located findings (per the method doc's step 2): - a new pattern, idiom, or structure standing beside an existing one that already solves the same thing, with no stated reason for the second way; - a divergent error-handling, logging, naming, or interface approach introduced where the codebase already has an established one; - a second workflow, process, or document format added alongside the established one rather than reusing or replacing it; - a divergence whose blast radius is durable/architectural but whose rationale was never recorded in the repo's ADR/docs convention; - a small local divergence with no rationale in its PR or commit; - an established way reused only because it is there, where its rationale is missing, incumbency-only, or stale — a challenge that was owed and skipped (route to `/discipline:reason-dont-recite` / `/discipline:do-your-research`). Correct each forward now: reuse the established way for the new work; or, where replacement is warranted, record the rationale at the blast-radius- appropriate level AND — if the established way is genuinely superseded — migrate the existing uses and retire it rather than leaving both. Never settle for the silent second way. ## What this skill does NOT do - **Does not mandate conformity.** A well-grounded replacement that supersedes the established way and migrates its uses is a correct outcome, not a violation; the duty is to keep one way, not to freeze the incumbent one. - **Does not police mechanical style.** Formatting and lint-settled choices belong to the linter/formatter; this skill audits the unlintable approach level only. - **Does not govern tool or dependency selection.** That is `/discipline:pick-for-the-problem`; incumbency there is a selection sin, not a consistency target. - **Does not fabricate a finding.** New work that already reuses the established way, or replaces it with a recorded reason, audits clean; say so. ## Gotchas - The tell is **two ways where one would do** — not divergence itself. A single replacement that openly superseded the old way (uses migrated, decision recorded) kept the codebase on one way; it is the goal, not the finding. The finding is the old way and the new way both left standing. - "Be consistent" read as "never replace" inverts the skill. Blind trust in the status quo is the failure mode on the *other* side; the misconstrual guard exists because straight conformity is not the goal — one way is. - A recorded reason is the burden, not correctness. An unexplained second way is a finding even if it would have been defensible; the fix is to state the rationale (and keep one way), not to argue the divergence was fine. ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [melodic-software](https://github.com/melodic-software) - **Source:** [melodic-software/claude-code-plugins](https://github.com/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins) - **License:** MIT Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-melodic-software-claude-code-plugins-reuse-or-replace - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/melodic-software - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.