---
name: change-proposal
description: 'Present proposed code changes visually before implementing. Use when: "show me options", "compare approaches", "what should we do", or when changes need before/after comparison.'
---
# Change Proposal
When proposing non-trivial changes, make your reasoning visible before acting. The user should see what will change, why, and what alternatives were considered:before a single file is edited.
Follow [writing-voice](../writing-voice/SKILL.md) for prose sections.
## When to Use This
- Multiple valid approaches exist (show competing options)
- Changes span 3+ files (show the dependency graph)
- Architecture or ownership shifts (show before/after diagrams)
- Lifecycle or data flow changes (show the flow)
- The user asks "what do you think?" or "how should we do this?"
For trivial changes (typo fix, single-line edit, obvious bug), skip this and just do it.
If the change reshapes a product surface (new command, new route, new primary API), state the post-change one-sentence meaning using [one-sentence-test](../one-sentence-test/SKILL.md) alongside the diagrams and diffs. It anchors the proposal to what the product *is*, not just what changed.
## The Three Tools
### 1. Before/After Diffs
Show what specific code will change. Use fenced diff blocks with file paths.
````diff
--- a/workspace.ts
+++ b/workspace.svelte.ts
@@ createWorkspaceState()
- let client = buildWorkspaceClient();
+ let client = $state(buildWorkspaceClient());
return {
get current() { return client; },
- async reset() {
- await client.wipe();
- client = buildWorkspaceClient();
+ async reset(options?: { key?: Uint8Array }) {
+ await client.dispose();
+ client = buildWorkspaceClient(options);
},
};
````
Rules:
- Show the smallest meaningful diff, not the whole file
- Include enough context lines (3-5) to understand placement
- Group related changes together, separate unrelated ones
- Label each diff with the file path and function/scope
### 2. ASCII Architecture Diagrams
Show how components relate before and after the change. Use the characters from [progress-summary](../progress-summary/SKILL.md): `┌ ┐ └ ┘ ─ │ ├ ┤ ┬ ┴ ┼ ▼ ▲ ──→ ←──`
**Before:**
```
auth ──signOut()──→ workspace.reset() ──→ internally rebuilds
│ (self-manages lifecycle)
├── dispose()
├── wipe()
└── client = build()
```
**After:**
```
auth ──signOut()──→ workspace.current.dispose()
setWorkspaceClient(build())
│
workspace is a reactive slot ← auth owns lifecycle
```
When to use which diagram type:
- **Ownership diagrams**: Who controls what (arrows show control flow)
- **Layer diagrams**: Stacked boxes for architectural layers
- **Flow diagrams**: Data or control moving between components
- **Journey diagrams**: Evolution from attempt A → B → C
### 3. Comparison Tables
When multiple approaches exist, present them as a table with clear trade-off dimensions.
```
A: Self-managed B: Slot + builder C: Auth owns state
─────────────── ───────────────── ──────────────────
Who holds $state? workspace workspace auth
Who decides wipe? workspace auth (explicit) auth (explicit)
Circular deps? same as today same as today WORSE
God module risk? workspace neither auth
```
Rules:
- Rows are dimensions the user cares about
- Columns are approaches
- Use short phrases, not sentences
- State your recommendation after the table, not inside it
## Proposal Structure
For non-trivial changes, present in this order:
1. **One sentence**: What you're proposing and why
2. **Diagram**: Architecture before/after (or competing approaches side-by-side)
3. **Diffs**: Concrete code changes for the recommended approach (hardest file first)
4. **Trade-offs**: What you gain, what you lose, what stays the same
5. **Ask**: "Should I proceed with [recommendation], or prefer [alternative]?"
## Scaling by Complexity
| Change scope | What to show |
| --- | --- |
| 1 file | Just the diff, no diagram |
| 2-5 files | Diff of the hardest file + one diagram showing relationships |
| 5+ files | Full proposal: comparison table, diagrams, diffs for hardest 2-3 files |
| Architecture decision | Comparison table mandatory, even if only 2 options |
| Competing approaches | All three tools: diagram per approach, diff per approach, comparison table |
## Good vs Bad Proposals
### Good
> `workspace.ts` currently self-manages its lifecycle. I'd split it: workspace becomes a reactive slot + builder, auth owns the lifecycle decisions.
>
> ```
> writes reads
> auth ──────────────────► workspace.svelte.ts ◄──── consumers
> builds, sets let client = $state() .current
> decides wipe set(newClient) via $effect
> ```
>
> ```diff
> --- a/workspace.ts (createWorkspaceState)
> +++ b/workspace.svelte.ts
> - let client = buildWorkspaceClient();
> + let client = $state(buildWorkspaceClient());
> ```
>
> Trade-off: auth gains 10 lines of explicit lifecycle code, workspace loses its god-object methods. Net simpler because lifecycle decisions are visible at the call site.
>
> Should I proceed with this, or keep workspace self-managed?
### Bad
> I'll refactor workspace.ts to use a slot pattern and move lifecycle management to auth.svelte.ts. This involves changing how the client is created and disposed, updating the state management to use $state, and modifying the reset function to accept an optional key parameter. The consumers will use $effect to automatically rebind when the workspace changes.
The bad version describes changes in prose. The good version shows them.
## What to Avoid
- **Prose-only proposals**: If you can draw it, draw it. If you can diff it, diff it.
- **Showing every file**: Show the hardest 2-3. Mention the rest as "same pattern."
- **Burying the recommendation**: Lead with your pick, then show alternatives.
- **Fake precision**: Don't show a diff for code you haven't read yet. Read first, then diff.