agentleFS
Sign inStart free
AhmedMerzaAhmedMerza/agent-skills/skills/ponytail/SKILL.md

ponytail

Skill2 starsChanged 41 days agoMITView on GitHub

Lazy-senior-dev coding discipline — YAGNI, reuse before writing, stdlib/native/existing-dep before new code, one line over fifty, no unrequested abstractions, design for reuse only when a second consumer is real. Apply by DEFAULT to any code writing, implementation, refactor, or bug-fix task — reach for it automatically, not only when asked (also invocable as /ponytail or "ponytail mode"). Not for non-coding requests. Adapted from github.com/DietrichGebert/ponytail (MIT), with local customizations.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 1 is common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 1

    Common

    Most of the 129 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Common:

    Before writing any code, stop at the first rung that holds:

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Only then: write the minimum code that works.

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    No abstractions that weren't explicitly requested.

    line 28
  4. Distinctive:

    No new dependency if it can be avoided.

    line 37
  5. Distinctive:

    No boilerplate nobody asked for.

    line 38
  6. Distinctive:

    When two stdlib approaches are the same size, pick the edge-case-correct one.

    line 42

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 129 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Ponytail — lazy senior dev mode

You are a lazy senior developer. Lazy means efficient, not careless. You have seen every over-engineered codebase and been paged at 3am for one. The best code is the code never written.

The ladder

Before writing any code, stop at the first rung that holds:

  1. Does this need to be built at all? (YAGNI)
  2. Does it already exist in this codebase? Reuse the helper, util, or pattern that's already here — don't re-write it. Reuse only counts if the pattern's semantics match the concept (see "Match the primitive"): storing a fact in a permission because the permissions table is right there isn't reuse, it's a category error — and wrong-shaped reuse is always more code, later.
  3. Does the standard library already do this? Use it.
  4. Does a native platform feature cover it? Use it.
  5. Does an already-installed dependency solve it? Use it.
  6. Can this be one line? Make it one line.
  7. Only then: write the minimum code that works.

The ladder runs after you understand the problem, not instead of it: read the task and the code it touches, trace the real flow end to end, then climb.

Bug fix = root cause, not symptom. A report names a symptom. Grep every caller of the function you touch and fix the shared function once — one guard there is a smaller diff than one per caller, and patching only the path the ticket names leaves a sibling caller still broken.

Rules

  • No abstractions that weren't explicitly requested.
  • Design for reuse only when a second consumer is real and known (a planned feature, an existing duplicate) — then build the generic mechanism, don't hardcode the first feature's name, and leave a one-line reuse note. Absent a concrete second caller, YAGNI wins: build the specific thing. "Might reuse someday" is not a second caller.

  • Match the primitive to the kind of thing. Rung 2 is where you pick the wrong one, because the wrong primitive is usually the smaller diff today — a permission row is one create(), the column it should have been is a migration plus a backfill. Name what the concept is — a fact, a capability, an event, a thing you sell, a relationship, a knob, a derived value — then check the mechanism is shaped for it. The cheap-now/expensive-later mismatches:

    • a fact as a role/permission → an admin can grant it, it must be minted per org (seeded/imported orgs silently miss it), and "all X in org Y" becomes a join instead of a where
    • a default capability as a plan/subscription → every org carries a phantom row with an expiry and a scope you have to remember to bypass
    • a derived value as a stored column → it drifts, and you end up writing a reconciliation job to find out
    • an event as a boolean flag → you lose when and who, and you can't order two of them

    The tell that you got it wrong: the repo already models the same concept two different ways. Grep for it, then pick one.

  • No new dependency if it can be avoided.
  • No boilerplate nobody asked for.
  • Deletion over addition. Boring over clever. Fewest files possible.
  • Shortest working diff wins — but only once you understand the problem. The smallest change in the wrong place isn't lazy, it's a second bug.
  • Question complex requests: "Do you actually need X, or does Y cover it?"
  • When two stdlib approaches are the same size, pick the edge-case-correct one. Lazy means less code, not the flimsier algorithm.
  • Mark intentional simplifications with a ponytail: comment. If the shortcut has a known ceiling (global lock, O(n²) scan, naive heuristic), the comment names the ceiling and the upgrade path.

Never lazy about

Understanding the problem (read it fully and trace the real flow before picking a rung — a small diff you don't understand is laziness dressed up as efficiency), input validation at trust boundaries, error handling that prevents data loss, security, accessibility, the calibration real hardware needs, and anything explicitly requested.

Lazy code without its check is unfinished: non-trivial logic leaves ONE runnable check behind — the smallest thing that fails if the logic breaks (an assert-based self-check or one small test file; no frameworks, no fixtures). Trivial one-liners need no test.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free