diffract

diffract

Read new sources through your codebase — and your codebase through them — to make sharp adoption decisions.

diffract is a Claude Code plugin (slash command + skill) for teams that need to decide, fast, whether a new paper / library / framework / technique is worth adopting. It's a four-pass diffractive reading plus an implementation tradeoff matrix with forced verdicts: adopt now / adopt differently / watch / pass. No hedging.

The framing is borrowed from feminist epistemology (Karen Barad, Donna Haraway). The goal is practical: produce the non-obvious insight that plain compare-and-contrast reliably misses.

Why

The agentic-AI tooling landscape is expanding faster than any small team can evaluate. "Read every paper" is not a strategy. "Adopt nothing until it's obvious" is a strategy for falling behind. Most "should we use this?" conversations end in a pros-and-cons list that feels thorough and converts to no decision.

This plugin forces a different shape:

• Read the source through the codebase, then the codebase through the source. Each direction surfaces things the other misses.
• Name the entanglements, not the differences. Where are you and the source already intra-acting — through shared lineage, shared constraints, shared failure modes — independent of adoption?
• Name the cut. Adoption is a cut. Non-adoption is also a cut. Both have exclusions. Name them.
• Force a verdict. No hedging. unknown — need <X> beats a guess, but "it depends" is not a valid answer.

See METHODOLOGY.md for the philosophical grounding (what diffraction is, why it beats comparison) and commands/diffract.md for the full prompt.

Install

Claude Code plugin marketplace

/plugin marketplace add abehmiel/diffract
/plugin install diffract@diffract

(Replace abehmiel/diffract with wherever this repo lives.)

Manual install

Copy the commands/ and skills/ directories into a .claude/ folder at the root of the repo (or your vault) you want to diffract against:

your-repo/
└── .claude/
    ├── commands/
    │   └── diffract.md
    └── skills/
        └── diffract/
            └── SKILL.md

Or install user-wide by copying into ~/.claude/commands/ and ~/.claude/skills/.

Usage

Inside Claude Code, in the repo you want to diffract against:

/diffract https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.01234
/diffract github.com/anthropics/claude-agent-sdk
/diffract "adopt Temporal for our durable workflows"

Or just ask naturally — the skill will auto-trigger:

Should we adopt DSPy for our retrieval pipeline?
Is claude-agent-sdk worth picking up given what we already have?

Output shape

Each run produces:

1. A two-sentence read of what the source actually proposes (not what it markets).
2. Pass 1 — source through codebase. (3–6 bullets, or no non-obvious refraction here.)
3. Pass 2 — codebase through source. (3–6 bullets.)
4. Pass 3 — 2–4 named entanglements. (What cut does adoption make? What becomes intelligible, what becomes marginalized?)
5. Pass 4 — the agential cut. Both the cut adoption makes and the cut non-adoption makes.
6. Implementation tradeoff matrix. At minimum three rows including do nothing, an adopt differently variant, and a full-adopt variant. Columns: effort, reversibility, team fit, strategic leverage, competitive asymmetry, distraction tax, honest verdict.
7. One sentence recommending one action for this week. Not a roadmap. One action.

Who this is for

• Small teams (1–10 engineers) shipping in a fast-moving domain who can't afford to adopt every shiny tool.
• Teams whose adoption decisions have real compliance / reliability / brand downside — the cost of a bad "adopt now" isn't just dev-days.
• Teams that already feel the pros-and-cons-list failure mode and want a sharper instrument.

If you have 200 engineers and a dedicated platform team, you probably have enough slack to evaluate things the slow way. This plugin is not for you.

Not the right tool for

• Bug fixes or patches inside an already-adopted dependency.
• Tactical implementation questions inside a chosen framework.
• Routine dependency upgrades.

Diffraction is about the choice to adopt. Not how to use.

Credits

The philosophical move here is not ours. Diffraction as method comes from Donna Haraway (The Promises of Monsters, 1992; much of her later work) and is developed rigorously by Karen Barad (Meeting the Universe Halfway, 2007). What this plugin contributes is the operational form — four passes, a forced-verdict tradeoff matrix, and anti-slop discipline — that makes the methodology usable in a software engineering workflow.

Any unclarity or reduction in that operationalization is ours, not theirs.

License

MIT. See LICENSE.