pragmatic-engineering
Skill23 starsChanged 8 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when a design trade-off needs a choice: simplest thing, reversibility, tracer bullet, estimate, \"is this over-engineered?\". Proven removal -> kill-slop. Interfaces -> codebase-design. Slices -> xp-agile-delivery.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
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 35
Stop exploring once a step settles the choice, but always price the undo (step 2) before acting, and run steps 4 and 5 on what you do.
- Distinctive: line 67
Comments earn their place: write one only for what the code cannot say — why, a constraint, a non-obvious invariant, a link to the issue or …
- Distinctive: line 72
Ask each question; a bad answer means cut, defer or reuse.
- Distinctive: line 94
Not a process: no ceremony, planning documents or gates of its own.
- Distinctive: line 95
Not a style guide beyond naming and language: it never overrides the repository's conventions or the user's explicit instructions.
- Distinctive: line 96
Not a licence to skip tests or safety checks in the name of "simple".
- Distinctive: line 97
Not a rule against abstraction: a seam that already pays for itself stays.
- Distinctive: line 98
Not a substitute for the book: it records decisions, not the book's arguments or examples.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
Pragmatic engineering
How a coding agent makes everyday trade-offs: what to build, how much, how reversibly, and when to stop. It distils ideas from The Pragmatic Programmer (Thomas & Hunt) and the Extreme Programming values, in our own words. Read the book for the reasoning; this file says what to do.
Decision procedure
Stop exploring once a step settles the choice, but always price the undo (step 2) before acting, and run steps 4 and 5 on what you do.
- Name the consumer and the outcome. Who uses the result, and what observable thing proves it works? A present requirement or caller justifies work; a hypothetical one does not.
- Price the undo. Easy to reverse: decide fast, take the smaller step. Hard to reverse (public API, data format, schema, deletion, shared state): narrow the step and state the rollback first.
- Spend the cheapest effort that removes the biggest uncertainty. Need a real implementation to grow from: tracer bullet. Need an answer you will throw away: prototype. Nothing unknown: just do it.
- Get feedback from the real path (test, command, rendered result) before the next step.
- Leave the touched area no worse, and report what you left undone.
Principle to behaviour
| Idea | What you do |
| Easy to change (ETC) | Between two designs, pick the one whose likely next change touches fewer places. Without a clear winner take the simpler one; do not design for a guessed future. |
| Orthogonality | Keep a change local: editing one component should not force edits in unrelated ones. Prefer small interfaces and passed-in data over globals and chained calls. Interface design -> codebase-design. |
| No final decisions | Hide a genuinely volatile choice (vendor, store, format) behind one seam. Do not build a plugin system for a decision nobody will revisit. |
| Tracer bullet | A thin end-to-end path through the real layers that you keep and widen. It is production code, so it gets the production checks. |
| Prototype | A throwaway that answers ONE named question. Record the answer, then delete or harden it; it never becomes the product by drift. |
| Good-enough software | Treat quality as a requirement agreed with the user, not endless polish. Deliver what the outcome needs, state known limits, never ship behaviour you know is wrong. |
| Refactor early and often | Restructure in small behaviour-preserving steps with tests green, apart from feature changes. Real duplication and unclear intent earn it; taste alone does not. |
| Estimates | Give a range with its assumptions and what would move it; re-estimate as the code teaches you. Performance claims are timed, not assumed. |
Naming and language
- English throughout the code: identifiers, comments, docstrings, test names, and logs and errors meant for developers. User-facing copy follows the product's locale.
- The ecosystem's convention, enforced by the project's linter:
- Python (PEP 8):
snake_casefor functions, variables and modules;PascalCasefor classes;UPPER_SNAKE_CASEfor constants. - JS/TS:
camelCasefor variables and functions;PascalCasefor classes, types and components;UPPER_SNAKE_CASEfor module constants. - Go:
MixedCaps, with an exported name starting with a capital. - Rust:
snake_case/PascalCase. - SQL:
snake_case. - File names follow the framework's convention.
- Python (PEP 8):
- Names state intent: verbs for functions (
load_invoice), nouns for values,is_/has_for booleans, units in the name (timeout_s), and no abbreviations beyond the domain's own. - Comments earn their place: write one only for what the code cannot say — why, a constraint, a non-obvious invariant, a link to the issue or spec. Never restate the code, never narrate history, and delete a comment the change made stale.
- Code already written in another language: new and touched code is English. Do not bulk-rename untouched code.
"Is this over-engineered?"
Ask each question; a bad answer means cut, defer or reuse.
- Is there a present consumer or requirement for it? If not, defer.
- Does an existing mechanism (code, library, platform feature) already do the job? If so, reuse it.
- Can you state in a few sentences why it exists and how it fails? If not, simplify or understand it first.
- Does the abstraction give a present benefit, such as isolating a volatile choice or enabling a test? A single-caller abstraction without one is tidiness, not design.
An extra found in a diff is stripped with kill-slop, keeping the behaviour.
Red flags
- "We might need it later" with no named consumer.
- A flag, layer or config key with one caller and one possible value.
- A copied block whose knowledge now lives in two places.
- A spike that grows tests, config and users without a decision to promote it.
- A TODO, comment or skipped test standing in for a decision about debt on the path you are changing.
- A fix nobody can explain; a big-bang change with no intermediate runnable point.
- A confident estimate or "done" with no evidence behind it.
- Broken-window zeal: fixing everything nearby until the diff cannot be reviewed.
What this is not
- Not a process: no ceremony, planning documents or gates of its own.
- Not a style guide beyond naming and language: it never overrides the repository's conventions or the user's explicit instructions.
- Not a licence to skip tests or safety checks in the name of "simple".
- Not a rule against abstraction: a seam that already pays for itself stays.
- Not a substitute for the book: it records decisions, not the book's arguments or examples.
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- marcus/marcus-skills★ 4same name
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 repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- claude-code-orchestratorSkill
- codebase-designSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- codex-subagent-routingSkill
- diagnosing-bugsSkill
- docker-composeSkill
- exhaustive-repo-cleanup-auditSkill
- gemini-cli-orchestratorSkill
- grok-build-orchestratorSkill
- kill-slopSkill
- kimi-cli-orchestratorSkill
- layered-testing-executorSkill
- legacy-code-changeSkill
- refactoring-catalogSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- tddSkill
- test-auditSkill
- testing-e2e-playwrightSkill
- windows-shell-interopSkill
- worktree-lifecycleSkill
- xp-agile-deliverySkill
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.

