pragmatic-programmer
Skill2 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Apply meta-principles of software craftsmanship: DRY, orthogonality, tracer bullets, and design by contract. Use when the user mentions "best practices", "pragmatic approach", "broken windows", "tracer bullet", "software craftsmanship", "avoid technical debt", "code ownership", or "how do I become a better developer". Also trigger when evaluating build-vs-buy decisions, designing estimation approaches, or choosing between reversible and irreversible architectural decisions. Covers estimation, domain languages, and reversibility. For code-level quality, see clean-code. For refactoring techniques, see refactoring-patterns.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- grndlvl/software-patternstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- wondelai/skillsword for word, first seen Jul 16, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- wondelai/skills★ 2.6k100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- grndlvl/software-patterns★ 17same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository383 other files it gives its agents.
- 37signals-waySkill
- ab-test-analysisSkill
- advisor-orchestrator-workerSkill
- ai-ml-engineeringSkill
- algorithmic-artSkill
- analyze-feature-requestsSkill
- animation-vocabularySkill
- apple-designSkill
- emil-design-engSkill
- find-animation-opportunitiesSkill
- improve-animationsSkill
- pick-ui-librarySkill
- prototypeSkill
- review-animationsSkill
- ansoff-matrixSkill
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- api-design-best-practicesSkill
- app-store-changelogSkill
- auth-authorizationSkill
- beachhead-segmentSkill
- blue-ocean-strategySkill
- brainstorm-experiments-existingSkill
- brainstorm-experiments-newSkill
- brainstorm-ideas-existingSkill
- brainstorm-ideas-newSkill
- brainstorm-okrsSkill
- brand-guidelinesSkill
- browser-testing-with-devtoolsSkill
- bug-hunt-swarmSkill
- business-modelSkill
- canvas-designSkill
- ci-cd-and-automationSkill
- claude-apiSkill
- clean-architectureSkill
- clean-codeSkill
- cli-creatorSkill
- code-review-and-qualitySkill
- code-review-skillSkill
- code-simplificationSkill
- cohort-analysisSkill
- cold-start-problemSkill
- commit-archaeologistSkill
- competitive-battlecardSkill
- competitor-analysisSkill
- contagiousSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- continuous-discoverySkill
- architecture-blueprint-generatorSkill
- azure-architecture-autopilotSkill
- cli-masterySkill
- codeqlSkill
- conventional-commitSkill
- create-implementation-planSkill
- csharp-asyncSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- dotnet-best-practicesSkill
- draw-io-diagram-generatorSkill
- git-commitSkill
- github-actions-efficiencySkill
- java-springbootSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. About 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈13
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 21
9-10: every principle holds -- DRY knowledge, orthogonal layers, a working tracer slice, contracts at boundaries, no broken windows, …
- Distinctive: line 25
Always state the score, name the failing diagnostic rows, and give the specific fix from the Action column to reach 10/10.
- Distinctive: line 33
Core concept: Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.
- Distinctive: line 61
Ask: "If I dramatically change the requirements behind a function, how many modules are affected?" The answer should be one
- Distinctive: line 64
Avoid global data -- every consumer of global state is coupled to it
- Distinctive: line 86
Use tracer bullets when "shooting in the dark" -- vague requirements, unproven architecture
- Distinctive: line 87
If a tracer misses, adjust and fire again -- the cost of iteration is low
- Distinctive: line 111
Use assertions for things that should never happen.
- Distinctive: line 131
Don't leave broken windows (bad designs, wrong decisions, poor code) unrepaired
- Distinctive: line 132
If you can't fix it now, board it up: a TODO with a ticket, a disabled feature, a stub
- Distinctive: line 177
Ask "what is this estimate for?" -- context determines precision (budget planning vs.
- Distinctive: line 178
Use PERT: (Optimistic + 4x Most Likely + Pessimistic) / 6
- Distinctive: line 180
Keep an estimation log: compare estimates to actuals and calibrate
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
The Pragmatic Programmer Framework
A systems-level approach to software craftsmanship from Hunt & Thomas' "The Pragmatic Programmer" (20th Anniversary Edition). Apply these meta-principles when designing systems, reviewing architecture, writing code, or advising on engineering culture -- how to think about software, not just how to write it.
Core Principle
Care about your craft. Software development demands continuous learning, disciplined practice, and personal responsibility -- pragmatic programmers think beyond the immediate problem to context, trade-offs, and long-term consequences. Great software comes from great habits: avoid duplication ruthlessly, keep components orthogonal, and treat every line of code as a living asset that must earn its place. The goal is not perfection -- it is systems that are easy to change, easy to understand, and easy to trust.
Scoring
Goal: 10/10. Score against the seven Quick Diagnostic rows: award ~1.4 points per row answered "yes" (7 yes = 10). Then band the result:
- 9-10: every principle holds -- DRY knowledge, orthogonal layers, a working tracer slice, contracts at boundaries, no broken windows, reversible vendor/DB choices, ranged estimates.
- 5-6: 1-2 violations that cost real change-effort (e.g. business logic coupled to the DB, single-point estimates).
- <=3: pervasive duplication, global state, or accumulated broken windows -- entropy is winning.
Always state the score, name the failing diagnostic rows, and give the specific fix from the Action column to reach 10/10.
The Seven Meta-Principles
Seven principles for building software that lasts:
1. DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
Core concept: Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system. DRY is about knowledge, not code -- duplicated logic, business rules, or configuration are far more dangerous than duplicated syntax.
Why it works: Duplicated knowledge must be changed in multiple places; eventually one gets missed, introducing inconsistency. DRY reduces the surface area for bugs and makes systems easier to change.
Key insights:
- DRY applies to knowledge and intent, not textual similarity -- two identical code blocks serving different business rules are NOT duplication
- Four types of duplication: imposed (environment forces it), inadvertent (developers don't realize), impatient (too lazy to abstract), inter-developer (multiple people duplicate)
- Comments that restate the code violate DRY -- explain why, not what
- Database schemas, API specs, and documentation duplicate knowledge unless generated from a single source
- The opposite of DRY is WET: "Write Everything Twice" or "We Enjoy Typing"
Code applications:
| Context | Pattern | Example |
| Config values | Single source of truth | DB connection in one env file, referenced everywhere |
| Validation rules | Shared schema | One JSON Schema or Zod schema for client and server |
| API contracts | Generate from spec | OpenAPI spec generates types, docs, and client code |
See: references/dry-orthogonality.md when classifying a specific duplication or deciding whether two code blocks are truly the same knowledge -- per-type examples and mitigations for the four duplication types.
2. Orthogonality
Core concept: Two components are orthogonal if changes in one do not affect the other. Design systems where components are self-contained, independent, and have a single, well-defined purpose.
Why it works: Decoupling localizes change -- a fix in one module can't ripple into unrelated ones, so blast radius stays bounded. Change the database layer and the UI should not break; change the auth provider and business logic should not care.
Key insights:
- Ask: "If I dramatically change the requirements behind a function, how many modules are affected?" The answer should be one
- Eliminate effects between unrelated things -- a logging change should never break billing
- Layered architectures promote orthogonality: presentation, domain logic, data access
- Avoid global data -- every consumer of global state is coupled to it
- Frameworks that force you to inherit from their classes reduce orthogonality
Code applications:
| Context | Pattern | Example |
| Architecture | Layered separation | Controller -> Service -> Repository, each replaceable |
| Dependencies | Dependency injection | Pass a Notifier interface, not a SlackClient concrete class |
| Testing | Isolated unit tests | Test business logic without database, network, or filesystem |
See: references/dry-orthogonality.md when measuring coupling or refactoring toward decoupled layers -- the change-impact and stranger tests, layered-architecture diagram, and the helicopter analogy.
3. Tracer Bullets and Prototypes
Core concept: Tracer bullets are end-to-end implementations connecting all layers of the system with minimal functionality. Unlike prototypes (which are throwaway), tracer bullet code is production code -- thin but real.
Why it works: Tracer bullets give immediate end-to-end feedback before you invest in filling out every feature. Users see something real, developers have a framework to build on, and integration issues surface early.
Key insights:
- Tracer bullet: thin but complete path through the system (UI -> API -> DB) -- you keep it
- Prototype: focused exploration of a single risky aspect -- you throw it away
- Use tracer bullets when "shooting in the dark" -- vague requirements, unproven architecture
- If a tracer misses, adjust and fire again -- the cost of iteration is low
- Label prototypes clearly as throwaway -- never let one become production code
Code applications:
| Context | Pattern | Example |
| New project | Vertical slice | One feature end-to-end: button -> API -> DB -> response |
| Uncertain tech | Spike prototype | Test WebSocket performance before committing |
| Microservice | Walking skeleton | Hello-world service through the full CI/CD pipeline |
See: references/tracer-bullets.md when deciding tracer vs. prototype on a new project or building a walking skeleton -- the shooting-in-the-dark decision, iteration loop, and common pitfalls.
4. Design by Contract and Assertive Programming
Core concept: Define and enforce the rights and responsibilities of software modules through preconditions (what must be true before), postconditions (what is guaranteed after), and invariants (what is always true). When a contract is violated, fail immediately and loudly.
Why it works: Contracts make assumptions explicit. Instead of silently corrupting data or limping along in an invalid state, the system crashes at the point of the problem -- dead programs tell no lies.
Key insights:
- Preconditions: caller's responsibility -- "I accept only positive integers"
- Postconditions: routine's guarantee -- "I will return a sorted list"
- Invariants: always true -- "Account balance never goes negative"
- Crash early: a dead program does far less damage than a crippled one
- Use assertions for things that should never happen; error handling for things that might
- In dynamic languages, implement contracts through runtime checks and guard clauses
Code applications:
| Context | Pattern | Example |
| Function entry | Precondition guard | assert age >= 0, "Age cannot be negative" at function start |
| Class state | Invariant validation | validate! called after every state mutation |
| API boundary | Schema validation | Validate request body against schema before processing |
See: references/contracts-assertions.md when adding contracts to a routine or deciding assertion vs. error handling -- worked pre/post/invariant patterns, dynamic-language guard clauses, and the assertions-vs-error-handling boundary.
5. The Broken Window Theory
Core concept: One broken window -- a badly designed piece of code, a poor management decision, a hack that "we'll fix later" -- starts the rot. Once a system shows neglect, entropy accelerates and discipline collapses.
Why it works: Psychology. When code is clean, developers feel social pressure to keep it that way; when code is already messy, the threshold for adding more mess drops to zero. Quality is a team habit, not an individual heroic effort.
Key insights:
- Don't leave broken windows (bad designs, wrong decisions, poor code) unrepaired
- If you can't fix it now, board it up: a TODO with a ticket, a disabled feature, a stub
- Be a catalyst for change: show people a working glimpse of the future (stone soup)
- Watch for slow degradation (boiled frog) -- monitor tech debt metrics over time
- The first hack is the most expensive because it gives permission for all subsequent hacks
Code applications:
| Context | Pattern | Example |
| Legacy code | Board up windows | Wrap bad code in a clean interface before adding features |
| Code review | Zero-tolerance for new debt | Reject PRs adding // TODO: fix later without a ticket |
| Tech debt | Debt budget | Allocate 20% of each sprint to fixing broken windows |
See: references/broken-windows.md when a team is normalizing neglect or you need to drive a turnaround -- repair strategies, the stone-soup catalyst play, and building a culture of quality.
6. Reversibility and Flexibility
Core concept: There are no final decisions. Build systems that make it easy to change your mind about databases, frameworks, vendors, architecture, and deployment targets -- the cost of change should be proportional to the scope of change.
Why it works: Requirements change, vendors get acquired, technologies fall out of favor. If your architecture hard-codes assumptions about any of these, every change becomes a rewrite; flexible architecture treats decisions as configuration, not structure.
Key insights:
- Abstract third-party dependencies behind your own interfaces -- never let vendor APIs leak into business logic
- The "forking road" test: could you switch from Postgres to DynamoDB in a week? If not, you're coupled
- Metadata-driven systems (config files, feature flags) are more flexible than hard-coded logic
- YAGNI applies to premature abstraction too -- don't build flexibility you don't need yet
- Reversibility is not predicting the future; it's not painting yourself into a corner
Code applications:
| Context | Pattern | Example |
| Database | Repository pattern | Business logic calls repo.save(user), not pg.query(...) |
| External API | Adapter/wrapper | PaymentGateway interface wraps Stripe; swap to Braintree later |
| Feature flags | Runtime toggles | New checkout flow behind a flag, rollback in seconds |
See: references/reversibility.md when committing to a vendor or framework, or weighing how reversible a decision must be -- per-layer reversibility patterns, the forking-road test, and when NOT to optimize for reversibility.
7. Estimation and Knowledge Portfolio
Core concept: Learn to estimate reliably by understanding scope, building models, decomposing into components, and assigning ranges. Manage your learning like a financial portfolio: invest regularly, diversify, and rebalance.
Why it works: Honest estimation builds trust with stakeholders ("1-3 weeks" beats a confidently wrong "2 weeks"). A knowledge portfolio keeps you relevant as technologies shift -- the programmer who stops learning stops being effective.
Key insights:
- Ask "what is this estimate for?" -- context determines precision (budget planning vs. sprint planning)
- Use PERT: (Optimistic + 4x Most Likely + Pessimistic) / 6
- Decompose into components and estimate each; the sum is more accurate than a single guess
- Keep an estimation log: compare estimates to actuals and calibrate
- Portfolio rules: invest regularly (learn weekly), diversify beyond your stack, mix safe and speculative bets, learn emerging tech early (buy low)
Code applications:
| Context | Pattern | Example |
| Sprint planning | Range estimates | "3-5 days" with confidence level, not a single number |
| New technology | Time-boxed spike | "2 days evaluating; then I can estimate properly" |
| Learning | Weekly investment | 1 hour/week on a new language, tool, or domain |
See: references/estimation-portfolio.md when producing an estimate you'll be held to or calibrating past misses -- the PERT and decomposition procedures, an estimation-log calibration loop, and portfolio rebalancing.
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Why It Fails | Fix |
| DRY-ing similar-looking code that serves different purposes | Couples unrelated concepts; changes to one break the other | Only DRY knowledge, not coincidental code similarity |
| Skipping tracer bullets, building layer-by-layer | Integration issues surface late; no end-to-end feedback | Build one thin vertical slice first |
| Ignoring broken windows "because we'll refactor later" | Entropy accelerates; later never comes; morale drops | Fix immediately or board up with a tracked ticket |
| Estimates as single-point commitments | False precision erodes trust when missed | Always give ranges with confidence levels |
| Making everything "flexible" upfront | Over-engineering; abstraction without evidence of need | Add flexibility when you have concrete evidence you'll need it |
| Removing production assertions "for performance" | Bugs assertions would catch now silently corrupt data | Keep critical assertions; benchmark before removing any |
| Global state "for convenience" | Destroys orthogonality; everything coupled to everything | Use dependency injection and explicit parameters |
Quick Diagnostic
| Question | If No | Action |
| Can I change the database without touching business logic? | Orthogonality violation | Introduce repository/adapter pattern |
| Do I have an end-to-end slice working? | Missing tracer bullet | Build one vertical slice before expanding |
| Is every business rule defined in exactly one place? | DRY violation | Identify the authoritative source; remove duplicates |
| Would a new developer call this codebase "clean"? | Broken windows present | Schedule a dedicated cleanup sprint |
| Do my estimates include ranges and confidence levels? | Estimation problem | Switch to PERT or range-based estimates |
| Can I roll back this deployment in under 5 minutes? | Reversibility gap | Add feature flags and blue-green deploys |
| Am I learning something new every week? | Knowledge portfolio stagnant | Schedule weekly learning time and track it |
Further Reading
- The Pragmatic Programmer: Your Journey to Mastery, 20th Anniversary Edition by Andrew Hunt and David Thomas
About the Authors
Andrew Hunt and David Thomas co-founded the Pragmatic Bookshelf and were among the 17 original authors of the Agile Manifesto. Thomas coined "DRY" and "Code Kata" and co-authored Programming Ruby (the Pickaxe book); Hunt focuses on how teams learn, communicate, and maintain quality. Together they wrote The Pragmatic Programmer, one of the most influential software books ever published.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

