functional-core-imperative-shell
Skill2 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when reviewing code that mixes business logic with I/O, database calls, or side effects, or when tests require extensive mocking to verify logic
- Reads credentials
In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- architecture-decision-recordsSkill
- boy-scout-ruleSkill
- domain-driven-designSkill
- git-commit-messageSkill
- react-best-practicesSkill
- revise-for-claritySkill
- ux-design-principlesSkill
- ux-prototypingSkill
- ux-visual-evaluationSkill
- visual-feedback-loopSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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 14
If the answer is no, the function mixes core and shell.
≈ “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.
Files
Functional Core, Imperative Shell — Code Review Checklist
Detect code that tangles business logic with side effects. The fix is always the same: push decisions into pure functions (the core), confine I/O to a thin orchestration layer (the shell).
The Litmus Test
Can you test this function's business logic without mocking anything?
If the answer is no, the function mixes core and shell. Every mock in a test is evidence of a missing boundary.
When to Use
During code review on any codebase. Language-agnostic.
Apply as an additional pass after the standard review. Flag violations as Important.
1. Impure Business Logic
Business logic functions that perform I/O. The most common violation.
Flag when a function both:
- Makes a decision (branching, validation, calculation, transformation)
- AND performs I/O (database query, API call, file read/write, network request)
Signals:
- Function validates input, then queries a database, then calculates based on the result — all in one body
- Calculation depends on a value fetched mid-function (e.g., fetching a discount rule then applying it)
- Function determines what action to take AND executes that action
The pattern: The shell gathers inputs (I/O), passes them to the core (pure), then acts on the result (I/O).
// BAD: decision + I/O tangled
function processOrder(orderId) {
order = db.getOrder(orderId) // I/O
if (order.total > 100) // decision
db.applyDiscount(orderId, order.total * 0.1) // I/O
}
// GOOD: separated
function calculateDiscount(order) { // pure core
if (order.total > 100) return order.total * 0.1
return 0
}
// shell: order = db.get() → discount = calculateDiscount(order) → db.apply(discount)2. Fat Shells
The shell should be a flat sequence: gather → decide → act. No branching, no transformation.
Flag when the shell contains:
if/elseorswitchthat determines behavior (not just dispatching on a core return value)- Data transformation, mapping, or filtering
- Validation logic
- Multiple sequential decisions interleaved with I/O (read → decide → write → read → decide → write)
Dispatching is OK: if (result.notify) sendEmail() is fine — the shell executes the core's decision. Flag when the shell makes the decision.
3. Hidden Side Effects in the Core
Functions that look pure but aren't. Subtle — easy to miss in review.
Flag these in any function that should be pure:
| Hidden side effect | Why it breaks purity | Fix |
Logging (logger.info, console.log) | I/O operation | Return diagnostic data; let the shell log |
Current time (new Date(), Date.now()) | Non-deterministic input | Accept timestamp as parameter |
Randomness (Math.random(), uuid()) | Non-deterministic input | Accept seed/value as parameter |
Environment variables (process.env) | Implicit external input | Accept as parameter |
| Global/module-level mutable state | Shared state mutation | Return new values; let the shell persist |
| Throwing exceptions for control flow | Forces caller into try/catch | Return result/error values |
The test: Given the same arguments, does this function always return the same result with no observable effect on the outside world?
Severity Guide
- Impure business logic (Section 1): Important — core architectural issue, causes mock-heavy tests and tangled concerns
- Fat shell (Section 2): Important when the shell contains non-trivial logic; Minor for simple dispatch branching
- Hidden side effects (Section 3): Important for non-determinism (
Date,random) and mutable state; Minor for logging in small functions
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.

