agentleFS
ku5icku5ic/claude-kit/skills/engineering-fundamentals/SKILL.md

engineering-fundamentals

Skill2 starsChanged 8 days agoMITView on GitHub

Concrete design and code-level checks for planning, review, and writing code, covering modularity, separation of concerns, reversibility, verifiability, function and file size, nesting, naming, magic values, error handling, requirements clarity, verification vs validation, and the red-green-refactor cycle. Complements the Change rules, which own the principles (minimal change, KISS, YAGNI, DRY, SOLID, comments). Use when planning or reviewing a change or design, or writing source code in any language, even if "fundamentals" is not mentioned by name.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Test design is test-patterns.

    line 31

≈ “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.

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

Engineering fundamentals

Concrete checks that turn the principles in rules/change.md into questions with observable answers. The principles themselves (minimal change, existing patterns, KISS, YAGNI, DRY, SOLID, comments, dead code) live in that rule; this skill never restates or overrides them.

ActivityApply
Planning a change or reviewing a designRequirements clarity, Design integrity
Writing or reviewing codeCode-level integrity, Metric thresholds, Design patterns
Adding behavior or fixing a bugRed-green-refactor
Reviewing whether a change is rightVerification and validation

Apply only what fits. Do not pad findings to fill sections.

FileCovers
reference/requirements-clarity.mdTestable, unambiguous, complete, consistent, before non-trivial work
reference/design-integrity.mdModule ownership, abstraction level, separation of concerns, reversibility
reference/code-level-integrity.mdPer-function and per-file checks
reference/metric-thresholds.mdThe one set of size, nesting, branch, and coupling numbers
reference/design-patterns.mdWhich pattern a size, spread, or repetition signal calls for
reference/verification-and-validation.mdBuilt it right vs built the right thing
reference/red-green-refactor.mdThe test-first cycle for new behavior and bug fixes
<!-- chat: skip -->

Test design is test-patterns.

<!-- chat: end -->

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.