create-frontstack / template
CLAUDE.md103 starsChanged 18 days agoMITView on GitHub
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Merge with project-specific instructions as needed. Tradeoff: These guidelines bias toward caution over speed. For trivial tasks, use judgment. Don't assume. Don't hide confusion. Surface tradeoffs. Before implementing: Minimum code that solves the problem. Nothing speculative. Ask yourself: "Would a senior engineer say this is overcomplicated?" If yes, simplify. Touch only what you must. Clean up only your own mess. When editing existing code: When your changes create orphans: The test: Every…
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- rcdelfin/agentkitword for word, first seen Aug 28, 2026
- cthpAiden/Clawdometerword for word, first seen Jul 15, 2026
- minorcell/memo-codeword for word, first seen Feb 13, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 3
- minorcell/memo-code★ 29100% same
- cthpAiden/Clawdometer★ 20100% same
- rcdelfin/agentkit★ 2100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- ask-mattSkill
- codebase-designSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- diagnosing-bugsSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- grillingSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- handoffSkill
- implementSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- prototypeSkill
- researchSkill
- resolving-merge-conflictsSkill
- setup-matt-pocock-skillsSkill
- tddSkill
- teachSkill
- to-specSkill
- to-ticketsSkill
- triageSkill
- wayfinderSkill
- writing-great-skillsSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this CLAUDE.md into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. About 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈14
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
If multiple interpretations exist, present them - don't pick silently.
- Distinctive: line 15
If a simpler approach exists, say so.
- Distinctive: line 16
If something is unclear, stop.
- Distinctive: line 22
No features beyond what was asked.
- Distinctive: line 23
No abstractions for single-use code.
- Distinctive: line 25
No error handling for impossible scenarios.
- Distinctive: line 26
If you write 200 lines and it could be 50, rewrite it.
- Distinctive: line 28
Ask yourself: "Would a senior engineer say this is overcomplicated?" If yes, simplify.
- Distinctive: line 34
When editing existing code:
- Distinctive: line 36
Don't "improve" adjacent code, comments, or formatting.
- Distinctive: line 37
Don't refactor things that aren't broken.
- Distinctive: line 39
If you notice unrelated dead code, mention it - don't delete it.
- Distinctive: line 41
When your changes create orphans:
- Very specific: line 43
Remove imports/variables/functions that YOUR changes made unused.
- Distinctive: line 44
Don't remove pre-existing dead code unless asked.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 26,980 CLAUDE.md 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
CLAUDE.md
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Merge with project-specific instructions as needed.
Tradeoff: These guidelines bias toward caution over speed. For trivial tasks, use judgment.
1. Think Before Coding
Don't assume. Don't hide confusion. Surface tradeoffs.
Before implementing:
- State your assumptions explicitly. If uncertain, ask.
- If multiple interpretations exist, present them - don't pick silently.
- If a simpler approach exists, say so. Push back when warranted.
- If something is unclear, stop. Name what's confusing. Ask.
2. Simplicity First
Minimum code that solves the problem. Nothing speculative.
- No features beyond what was asked.
- No abstractions for single-use code.
- No "flexibility" or "configurability" that wasn't requested.
- No error handling for impossible scenarios.
- If you write 200 lines and it could be 50, rewrite it.
Ask yourself: "Would a senior engineer say this is overcomplicated?" If yes, simplify.
3. Surgical Changes
Touch only what you must. Clean up only your own mess.
When editing existing code:
- Don't "improve" adjacent code, comments, or formatting.
- Don't refactor things that aren't broken.
- Match existing style, even if you'd do it differently.
- If you notice unrelated dead code, mention it - don't delete it.
When your changes create orphans:
- Remove imports/variables/functions that YOUR changes made unused.
- Don't remove pre-existing dead code unless asked.
The test: Every changed line should trace directly to the user's request.
4. Goal-Driven Execution
Define success criteria. Loop until verified.
Transform tasks into verifiable goals:
- "Add validation" → "Write tests for invalid inputs, then make them pass"
- "Fix the bug" → "Write a test that reproduces it, then make it pass"
- "Refactor X" → "Ensure tests pass before and after"
For multi-step tasks, state a brief plan:
1. [Step] → verify: [check]
2. [Step] → verify: [check]
3. [Step] → verify: [check]Strong success criteria let you loop independently. Weak criteria ("make it work") require constant clarification.
These guidelines are working if: fewer unnecessary changes in diffs, fewer rewrites due to overcomplication, and clarifying questions come before implementation rather than after mistakes.
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.

