agentleFS
lgtm-hqlgtm-hq/ai-skills/skills/stand-py/SKILL.md

stand-py

Skill1 starsChanged 10 days agoMITView on GitHub

Python >= 3.11 coding standards. Use when writing Python code. Requires type hints, return types, Google-style docstrings, trailing commas, explicit kwargs, StrEnum with auto(), dataclasses, pytest-style tests.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 9 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 9

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    All Python code should be run with uv

    line 12
  2. Very specific:

    Use dataclasses for structured records with fixed fields and named attributes

    line 53
  3. Very specific:

    Use collections.defaultdict for dynamic key-value aggregation with automatic defaults

    line 54
  4. Very specific:

    Use auto() with all Enums where it makes sense

    line 60
  5. Distinctive:

    Prefer Python-native constructs over verbose cross-language patterns.

    line 64
  6. Very specific:

    Follow the lint skill for linting and formatting workflow.

    line 173
  7. Very specific:

    Follow the lint skill ignore policy (Rules section): fix the root cause first.

    line 177
  8. Distinctive:

    NEVER use unittest style or test classes

    line 200
  9. Distinctive:

    Use pytest-style test functions only

    line 201
  10. Distinctive:

    Use fixtures for reusable setup/teardown

    line 203
  11. Very specific:

    Use @pytest.mark.parametrize to reduce duplication

    line 204
  12. Very specific:

    ALWAYS use assertpy for assertions — never bare assert statements.

    line 205
  13. Very specific:

    Keep pytest.raises for exception contexts (assertpy does not replace it)

    line 206

≈ “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

Python Code Standards

Standards for Python code (>= 3.11).

Runtime

  • All Python code should be run with uv

PEP Compliance

  • PEP 604: Use union types as X | Y (not Union[X, Y])
  • PEP 673: Use Self type for self-referential types

Required Elements

  • Type hints on ALL function parameters
  • Return types on ALL functions
  • Docstrings in Google Style Guide format for:
    • Modules
    • Classes
    • Functions/methods

Docstring Format (Google Style)

def function_with_docstring(
    param1: str,
    param2: int,
) -> bool:
    """Short description of function.

    Longer description if needed.

    Args:
        param1: Description of param1.
        param2: Description of param2.

    Returns:
        Description of return value.

    Raises:
        ValueError: When something is wrong.
    """

Design Patterns

  • Use dataclasses for structured records with fixed fields and named attributes
  • Use collections.defaultdict for dynamic key-value aggregation with automatic defaults
  • Choose based on the use case: typed record-like object (dataclass) vs map with default values (defaultdict)
  • Each dataclass should be in a separate file
  • String Enums should use StrEnum with auto()
  • Use auto() with all Enums where it makes sense

Idioms

Prefer Python-native constructs over verbose cross-language patterns.

  • any()/all() over flag-and-break loops:

    # Don't
    found = False
    for p in paths:
        if p.exists():
            found = True
            break
    
    # Do
    found = any(p.exists() for p in paths)
  • dict.get() over key-in checks:

    # Don't
    if name in registry:
        return registry[name]
    return None
    
    # Do
    return registry.get(name)
  • pathlib over os.path — never mix the two in one codebase:

    # Don't
    root = os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(path)))
    
    # Do
    root = Path(path).parents[2]
  • Truthiness over length checks:

    # Don't
    if len(items) == 0:
        ...
    
    # Do
    if not items:
        ...
  • Comprehensions over loop-append for simple transforms:

    # Don't
    names = []
    for user in users:
        names.append(user.name)
    
    # Do
    names = [user.name for user in users]
  • Direct boolean returns:

    # Don't
    if count > limit:
        return True
    return False
    
    # Do
    return count > limit
  • contextlib.suppress(SomeError) over a try/except SomeError: pass block
  • Reach for itertools/functools (chain, pairwise, cache, reduce) when they replace hand-rolled loop logic

Formatting Rules

  • More than 1 arg/param requires a trailing comma:

    # Good
    def foo(bar: str, baz: int,) -> None:
    
    # Bad
    def foo(bar: str, baz: int) -> None:
  • Be explicit with function calls when more than 1 arg:

    # Good
    foo(bar=bar, baz=baz)
    
    # Bad
    foo(bar, baz)
  • Single arg can be positional:

    # OK
    foo(bar)

Linting

Follow the lint skill for linting and formatting workflow.

Ignoring Issues

Follow the lint skill ignore policy (Rules section): fix the root cause first; if suppression is genuinely required, use the narrowest possible ignore (specific rule code, single line) with an inline justification; blanket or file-level ignores require a documented exception.

Python-specific: Bandit requires an inline # nosec or # nosec BXXX - reason on the same line as the flagged statement (preceding-line # nosec is silently ignored by Bandit). See the lint skill for other tool ignore configurations (e.g. mypy may use a preceding-line comment plus inline # type: ignore):

# Don't - blanket, unjustified ignore
subprocess.run(["validate.sh"])  # nosec

# Do - narrowest code, inline justification
subprocess.run(["validate.sh"])  # nosec B603 - fixed argv list; no shell

Additional Python-specific note: docstrings are required even for tests — no exceptions.

Testing (Pytest)

  • NEVER use unittest style or test classes
  • Use pytest-style test functions only
  • Leverage conftest.py for shared fixtures
  • Use fixtures for reusable setup/teardown
  • Use @pytest.mark.parametrize to reduce duplication
  • ALWAYS use assertpy for assertions — never bare assert statements. Keep pytest.raises for exception contexts (assertpy does not replace it)
# Don't
assert result.count == 3
assert "drift" in output

# Do
from assertpy import assert_that

assert_that(result.count).is_equal_to(3)
assert_that(output).contains("drift")
# WRONG
class TestFoo(unittest.TestCase):
    def test_bar(self):
        ...

# CORRECT
def test_foo_bar() -> None:
    """Verify foo handles bar correctly."""
    ...

Wiring vs. Behavior

A test that asserts field == "literal" where "literal" is also defined in source code is duplication, and produces silent drift the moment either side changes.

  • Wiring tests (does X read from canonical Y) — source from the constant. Better still, ask whether the test is just restating the constant's value; if so, delete it. The codegen / source-of-truth machinery is what guarantees that wiring, not a per-consumer assertion.
  • Behavior tests (does X meet a fixed external contract — protocol versions, public API shapes, business rules) — hardcode the literal. The literal is the contract.
  • Fixture data and parser inputs are not wiring — keep those literal. They represent the world being modeled, not internal state.

Parametrize IDs should describe the case under test (attr=min_version), never encode mutable data values (min_version_is_0.43.0) — IDs that change with every dependency bump are a smell.

Parametrize ID Hygiene

# WRONG — id encodes the data, churns on every bump
ids=["min_version_is_0.43.0"]

# CORRECT — id names the case
ids=["attr=min_version"]

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.