engineering-principles
Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Apply conditional engineering principles to code changes, test writing or review, performance testing already in scope, and substantial design, migration, operations, concurrency, or maintenance decisions.
22 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- SwiftyJunnos/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ericwang200608-beep/LANYANT-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- paureis/pau-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Azure/agent-app-mcptheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- the-inconvenience-store/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- Azure/gpt-rag-mcptheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use component-release and release.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
Microsoft AzureSkillcomponent-release
Prepares a verifiable Agent Landing Zone UI release. Use for release branches, VERSION, changelog entries, tags, release notes, and compatibility evidence; never publish without explicit human approval.
Also in 4 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillrelease
Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks to cut/publish a Huabu desktop release or tag a version. Performs an outward action — bumps the version in apps/desktop/package.json, commits + annotated-tags vX.Y.Z, and pushes the branch + tag. That tag push auto-builds the macOS/Windows installers and publishes a GitHub Release. Provides `status`, `bump`, `tag-push`, and a one-command `run` (bump → tag-push).
Also in 9 projects that use this
Other versions22 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 22
- Azure/agent-landing-zone★ 1.2ksame name
- Azure/GPT-RAG★ 1.2ksame name
- Azure/agent-app-ingestion★ 188same name
- Azure/gpt-rag-ingestion★ 188same name
- Azure/agent-app-orchestrator★ 107same name
- Azure/gpt-rag-orchestrator★ 107same name
- Azure/agent-app-mcp★ 22same name
- Azure/gpt-rag-mcp★ 22same name
- Azure/bicep-ptn-aiml-landing-zone★ 19same name
- Azure/agent-app-ui★ 10same name
12 more not listed
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 repository45 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- blast-radiusSkill
- broSkill
- codebase-designSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- confluence-workflowSkill
- creating-a-pr-mrSkill
- defuddleSkill
- diagram-designSkill
- docxSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- forgejo-cliSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- gh-cliSkill
- git-conventional-commitsSkill
- git-working-agreementSkill
- glab-cliSkill
- grillingSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- howSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- jira-workflowSkill
- json-canvasSkill
- k8s-opsSkill
- obsidian-basesSkill
- obsidian-cliSkill
- obsidian-markdownSkill
- openspec-workflowSkill
- pdfSkill
- pptxSkill
- prototypeSkill
- researchSkill
- setup-matt-pocock-skillsSkill
- skill-minerSkill
- technical-writingSkill
- theme-factorySkill
- to-specSkill
- to-ticketsSkill
- triageSkill
- unslopSkill
- wayfinderSkill
- whySkill
- writing-for-agentsSkill
- xlsxSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 21 edited versions we read keep these.
13
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Read always-on.md to select the concise rules relevant to a code modification.
- Distinctive: line 20
Use when code accumulates wrappers, indirection, hidden state, or scattered answers.
- Distinctive: line 26
Use when external data enters the system.
- Distinctive: line 32
Use for retries, provisioning, migrations, commands, agents, and lifecycle work.
- Distinctive: line 38
Use when concurrent workers write the same files, branches, records, or caches.
- Distinctive: line 44
Use for migrations and multi-step delivery.
- Distinctive: line 50
Use when replacing an internal API with no persisted-data or external-consumer compatibility requirement.
- Distinctive: line 57
Use when a new requirement exposes a mismatch in the existing design.
- Distinctive: line 63
Use when repeatability, scale, or auditability justifies a reusable script, codemod, generator, test harness, or delegate contract.
- Distinctive: line 69
Use when the same correction or failure recurs.
- Distinctive: line 76
Use when writing, changing, or reviewing tests.
- Distinctive: line 91
Use only while conducting performance tests or benchmarks already in scope.
- Distinctive: line 102
Use when changed behavior or an invariant is ready to exercise.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 21 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Engineering Principles
This is a conditional index, not a checklist to force onto every change. Select only principles whose trigger matches the current decision. State the principle only when it materially changes the work.
Read always-on.md to select the concise rules relevant to a code modification. The sections below provide their decision triggers and additional context.
Principles
Minimize Reader Load
Use when code accumulates wrappers, indirection, hidden state, or scattered answers. Reduce the layers between a maintainer's question and the code that answers it. Keep mutable scope and required context small.
Boundary Discipline
Use when external data enters the system. Parse and validate once at the boundary, represent the valid state explicitly, then keep internal logic direct and testable.
Make Operations Idempotent
Use for retries, provisioning, migrations, commands, agents, and lifecycle work. Design repeated and partially completed runs to converge on the same end state. Detect current state before mutating it.
Separate Before Serializing Shared State
Use when concurrent workers write the same files, branches, records, or caches. First remove unnecessary sharing through ownership or partitioning. Serialize only the shared writes that remain a real invariant.
Sequence Verifiable Units
Use for migrations and multi-step delivery. Split work into units that each end in an observable valid state, order blockers first, and verify each unit before starting the next.
Migrate Callers, Then Delete Legacy APIs
Use when replacing an internal API with no persisted-data or external-consumer compatibility requirement. Migrate callers and remove the old path in the same delivery wave. When compatibility is real, make its owner and removal condition explicit instead.
Redesign From First Principles
Use when a new requirement exposes a mismatch in the existing design. Ask what the structure would be if the requirement had existed from day one, then compare that design with an incremental change before choosing.
Build The Lever
Use when repeatability, scale, or auditability justifies a reusable script, codemod, generator, test harness, or delegate contract. Build it only when its future value exceeds its maintenance cost and it is cheaper than direct work.
Encode Lessons In Structure
Use when the same correction or failure recurs. Prefer an enforceable type, test, lint, validation rule, script, repository instruction, or focused skill over another reminder. Route historical rationale to the project's established documentation or memory system.
Test Behavior, Not Implementation
Use when writing, changing, or reviewing tests. Exercise the interface callers use and assert observable results, errors, state changes, or side effects. Choose expectations from specified behavior, reviewed reference outputs, or explicit contracts, rather than computing them by calling or reimplementing the code under test. Prefer assertions that fail for a relevant defect over checks of private calls or duplicated internals.
For mocked dependencies, check meaningful payloads or resulting effects. Assert call counts when the count itself is the contract, such as a retry limit or at-most-once delivery. Keep legitimate tests, including negative, property-based, compile-time, contract, reviewed snapshot, and characterization tests, when they protect behavior or an explicit contract.
Validate Performance Measurements
Use only while conducting performance tests or benchmarks already in scope. This principle validates those measurements; it does not initiate benchmarking for ordinary implementation, design ideas, or suspected performance effects.
Confirm the intended work ran successfully. Rule out errors, cached or skipped work, unequal comparison settings, and run-to-run noise. Record the workload, settings, run count, and spread with the result. Support bottleneck claims with profiles or system counters from the measured run, not guesses from the code.
Prove It Works
Use when changed behavior or an invariant is ready to exercise. Run the narrowest executable check that covers it. For prose or non-executable metadata, inspect the resulting artifact. Avoid unrelated suites and generic final rechecking when earlier evidence still applies. State what was verified and what remains uncertain.
Completion
Select relevant principles once. The principle pass is complete when each selected principle names the concrete decision it changed and no unselected principle is added merely for ceremony.
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.

