[IshKebab]

This is effectively meaningless (and the article even recognises that) because it delegates all meaning to the definition of "works".

Even "passes all the tests" isn't a great definition. What are you testing?

For example think about build systems. "Works" could be "builds everything correctly" in which case the simplest thing is just a shell script with all the commands written out.

That's obviously terrible, so then "works" becomes "doesn't unnecessarily repeat work" and you end up with Make.

But then Make doesn't scale to large monorepos with CI so then "works" becomes "and doesn't allow undeclared dependencies" and you come up with Bazel.

So the same meaningless advice can justify wildly different solutions.

I think better advice is just "try to keep things simple where possible". It's vague because it requires experience and design skill.