SCRIPT CHECK · 60 SECONDS
Five quick questions show how often it appears, how believable it feels, and what it makes you avoid. You’ll get one private next step.
This is not a diagnosis and there is no pass or fail. It measures the current frequency, credibility, and behavioral cost of “I'm not maintaining it, I'm just enabling it by not rewriting”, including the private rule underneath it: If I touch a flawed system without overhauling it, my patch is proof I chose to let the flaw continue, so every fix that isn't a rewrite counts against me.
QUIET
“I'm not maintaining it, I'm just enabling it by not rewriting” appears, but it rarely gets the final say. Keep this line available for higher-pressure moments: “A guard clause closes a ticket. It doesn't cast a vote on the whole file.”
PRESENT
“I'm not maintaining it, I'm just enabling it by not rewriting” wins some small decisions before you catch it. Your useful interruption is: “Patching what's broken today isn't the same as endorsing how it was built.”
ACTIVE
“I'm not maintaining it, I'm just enabling it by not rewriting” is shaping action often enough to deserve a deliberate counterexample. Start privately and concretely: Pick one patch you've made to old code and write two lines: what the ticket asked for, and what a full rewrite would have required. Keep it for yourself.
DOMINANT
Right now, “I'm not maintaining it, I'm just enabling it by not rewriting” is steering many of the moments you measured. That is a pattern reading, not a diagnosis or character verdict. Begin with one reversible receipt: Pick one patch you've made to old code and write two lines: what the ticket asked for, and what a full rewrite would have required. Keep it for yourself.