Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.
Surging2 mentions in 2 weeks
11 projects use a version of this
217k7mo agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Code review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "what can we delete", "is this over-engineered", "simplify review", or invokes /ponytail-review. Complements correctness-focused review, this one only hunts complexity.
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.
No other project uses it yet
2.9k3mo agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
This rule governs the process of committing and pushing changes to git repositories. It should be applied whenever: (1) The user indicates they want to commit or push changes, (2) The user asks about git commit conventions, (3) The user wants to update or save their work to git, or (4) Any git-related commit and push operations are requested. The rule ensures consistent commit message formatting, proper change documentation, and maintainable git history. It's particularly important for maintaining clear project history, facilitating code reviews, and ensuring proper documentation of changes. This rule helps maintain high-quality commit messages that explain both what changed and why, making it easier for both humans and AI to understand the project's evolution.
119mo agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Capability-security review of PRs, diffs, or third-party/plugin code — apply when reviewing pull requests, auditing contributed code, or judging whether code is safe.
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.
357mo agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Blueprint — behavioral guidelines for coding agents. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to ensure accuracy, simplicity, and surgical changes.
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.
Use when writing or reviewing Python code — naming conventions, type hints, common pitfalls (mutable defaults, bare except, is-vs-==), and testing structure.
Reviews and generates micro-frontend code against eight boundary rules from Building Micro-Frontends (O'Reilly), plus governance extensions for feature-flag scope, edge strategy, SSR ownership, and boundary fitness functions. Use when a user says "review my shell code", "is this a boundary violation?", "generate a Module Federation shell", "how do I mount this MFE?", "review my micro-frontend architecture", "set up event communication between MFEs", "create a new micro-frontend", "how should we use edge with MFEs?", "where should feature flags live?", or "how do I enforce boundaries in a monorepo?". Loads automatically when the user pastes shell integration code, Module Federation config, Single SPA registration, or Native Federation routes. Does not activate for component-level code within a single deployed unit, or for generic React, Vue, or Angular questions with no cross-team deployment angle.
5353d agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Fable 5 coding craft: locate-before-write, root-cause method, simplicity taste, error-handling philosophy, test integrity, refactoring discipline, and counters to common LLM coding failure modes. Load when writing, refactoring, debugging, or reviewing non-trivial code in any language.
1255mo agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Apply language-agnostic clean-code discipline to all code writing, editing, reviewing, testing, and refactoring, including file placement, single responsibility, and verified completion.
1250d agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Forces the laziest solution that actually works, simplest, shortest, most minimal. Channels a senior dev who has seen everything: question whether the task needs to exist at all (YAGNI), reach for the standard library before custom code, native platform features before dependencies, one line before fifty. Supports intensity levels: lite, full (default), ultra. Use on ANY coding task: writing, adding, refactoring, fixing, reviewing, or designing code, and choosing libraries or dependencies. Also use whenever the user says "ponytail", "be lazy", "lazy mode", "simplest solution", "minimal solution", "yagni", "do less", or "shortest path", or complains about over-engineering, bloat, boilerplate, or unnecessary dependencies. Do NOT use for non-coding requests (general knowledge, prose, translation, summaries, recipes).
Use before implementing big work — new systems, pipelines, daemons, or anything stateful/concurrent — where a bug would be expensive to find after code exists. Requires a written implementation plan to pass multi-round adversarial review by two independent LLM reviewers before any code is written. Not for scoped bug fixes or single-file changes; see requirements-clarification for those.