simple-code-writer
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when implementing, editing, or refactoring code and the solution should be the smallest correct change, prefer standard or platform capabilities, avoid speculative abstractions, and preserve existing contracts with proportional verification.
In this repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agent-skills-archive-orchestratorSkill
- call-r-lib-in-pythonSkill
- code-commenterSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- end-user-xp-improverSkill
- fp-developerSkill
- lesson-documenterSkill
- plan-designerSkill
- preferred-workflowSkill
- release-preparerSkill
- scientific-prose-editorSkill
- spec-driven-developerSkill
- wayback-link-fallbackSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
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 26
Ask before adopting a simpler alternative that changes agreed scope or behavior.
- Distinctive: line 32
Follow sound local patterns.
- Distinctive: line 35
Keep state, effects, ownership, error handling, and data movement visible where they matter.
- Distinctive: line 37
Add a dependency only when simpler available options are inadequate and its lifecycle, security, and operational costs are justified.
- Distinctive: line 40
Avoid stubs, speculative extension points, drive-by cleanup, and comments that narrate mechanics.
- Distinctive: line 51
Run the narrowest relevant tests, type checks, linters, or builds.
- Very specific: line 63
Stop when the simpler solution changes a public contract, multiple incompatible architectures exist, a new dependency/migration/security …
≈ “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
Simple Code Writer
Choose the lowest total-cost solution across correctness, readability, maintenance, performance, operations, and future change—not merely the fewest lines.
Before editing
Inspect the request, repository instructions, current changes, relevant source and callers, public contracts, tests, and established conventions. Read the simplicity checklist before substantial implementation or refactoring.
Apply these questions in order:
- Can the requirement be eliminated, deferred, configured, or enforced at an existing boundary without changing agreed behavior?
- Can the standard library or platform solve it directly?
- Does an existing dependency solve a problem that belongs to its domain?
- What is the clearest direct implementation that satisfies only the current requirement?
Ask before adopting a simpler alternative that changes agreed scope or behavior.
Implementation rules
- Make the smallest coherent diff that satisfies observable behavior.
- Preserve public interfaces and user-visible behavior unless change is requested.
- Follow sound local patterns; do not introduce a competing architecture for a local edit.
- Introduce a helper or abstraction only when it names a stable concept, removes meaningful duplication, or enforces a real boundary.
- Keep state, effects, ownership, error handling, and data movement visible where they matter.
- Add a dependency only when simpler available options are inadequate and its lifecycle, security, and operational costs are justified.
- Optimize measured hot paths or explicit constraints, not hypothetical ones.
- Avoid stubs, speculative extension points, drive-by cleanup, and comments that narrate mechanics.
Refactoring
Establish the behavior contract before changing structure. Add characterization coverage when important behavior is unprotected. Prefer local simplification and stop when further work would change behavior, widen scope materially, or require an architectural decision.
Verification
Run the narrowest relevant tests, type checks, linters, or builds. Add focused tests for changed behavior and important unprotected contracts, not implementation details. Report unrelated failures separately.
Composition and conflicts
Narrower domain skills may impose stronger requirements, but every added layer, type, dependency, or process must solve a concrete problem. Follow explicit user and repository instructions when they conflict with this baseline.
Stop conditions
Stop when the simpler solution changes a public contract, multiple incompatible architectures exist, a new dependency/migration/security change is unexpectedly required, or relevant behavior cannot be verified.
Expected output
Report behavior implemented, simpler alternatives materially considered, files changed, tests and checks, deviations, and remaining risks or deferred work.
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.

