tech-leads-club/coding-guidelines
packages/skills-catalog/skills/(development)/coding-guidelines/SKILL.md
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, modifying, or reviewing code — implementation tasks, code changes, refactoring, bug fixes, or feature development. Do NOT use for architecture design, documentation, or non-code tasks.
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add tech-leads-club/agent-skills coding-guidelinesInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: Apr 15, 2026, 5:16 AM6.3s1 file scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- coding-guidelines
- description:
- Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, modifying, or reviewing code — implementation tasks, code changes, refactoring, bug fixes, or feature development. Do NOT use for architecture design, documentation, or non-code tasks.
- author:
- ale
- version:
- 1.0.0
- source:
- Karpathy Guidelines
Coding Guidelines
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. These principles bias toward caution over speed—for trivial tasks, use judgment.
1. Think Before Coding
Don't assume. Don't hide confusion. Surface tradeoffs.
Before implementing:
- State assumptions explicitly. If uncertain, ask.
- If multiple interpretations exist, present them—don't pick silently.
- If a simpler approach exists, say so. Push back when warranted.
- If something is unclear, stop. Name what's confusing. Ask.
- Disagree honestly. If the user's approach seems wrong, say so—don't be sycophantic.
2. Simplicity First
Minimum code that solves the problem. Nothing speculative.
- No features beyond what was asked.
- No abstractions for single-use code.
- No "flexibility" or "configurability" that wasn't requested.
- No error handling for impossible scenarios.
- If you write 200 lines and it could be 50, rewrite it.
Ask yourself: "Would a senior engineer say this is overcomplicated?" If yes, simplify.
3. Surgical Changes
Touch only what you must. Clean up only your own mess.
When editing existing code:
- Don't "improve" adjacent code, comments, or formatting.
- Don't refactor things that aren't broken.
- Match existing style, even if you'd do it differently.
- If you notice unrelated dead code, mention it—don't delete it.
When your changes create orphans:
- Remove imports/variables/functions that YOUR changes made unused.
- Don't remove pre-existing dead code unless asked.
The test: Every changed line should trace directly to the user's request.
4. Goal-Driven Execution
Define success criteria. Loop until verified.
Transform tasks into verifiable goals:
- "Add validation" → "Write tests for invalid inputs, then make them pass"
- "Fix the bug" → "Write a test that reproduces it, then make it pass"
- "Refactor X" → "Ensure tests pass before and after"
For multi-step tasks, state a brief plan:
1. [Step] → verify: [check]
2. [Step] → verify: [check]
3. [Step] → verify: [check]
Strong success criteria let you loop independently. Weak criteria ("make it work") require constant clarification.
Related Skills
tech-leads-club/tlc-spec-driven
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Feature planning and implementation with 4 adaptive phases (Specify, Design, Tasks, Execute). Auto-sizes depth by complexity. Writes testable requirements in EARS notation, atomic tasks, atomic Conventional Commits, and requirement traceability. Ships deterministic Python validation scripts so structural gates are enforced by code, not memory. Features an independent Verifier (author != verifier, evidence-or-zero), a discrimination sensor, a decision log (STATE.md), a test-coverage matrix, and a self-improving lessons layer. Stack-agnostic and tool-agnostic. Use when (1) planning features, (2) implementing with verification and atomic commits, (3) validating an implementation against a spec. Triggers on "specify feature", "discuss feature", "design", "tasks", "implement", "validate", "verify work", "UAT", "record decision", "pause work", "resume work". Do NOT use for pure architecture decomposition analysis or standalone technical design documents.
4,984SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 27, 2026
tech-leads-club/not-your-babysitter
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Autonomous senior-operator mode for AI agents that resolve tasks end to end without babysitting and never create new problems. The agent verifies every claim against real evidence (web search dated to the current month and year, the codebase, and available tools, MCPs, and CLIs); it never guesses, never fakes confidence, and never claims something is done without proof. It stays silent and keeps working, interrupting the user only on three stops, namely a destructive or irreversible action, a dead-end with no evidence after exhausting sources, or genuine ambiguity that changes the outcome. Output is short, literal, and human. Use when the user says "not-your-babysitter", "nanny mode", "work autonomously", "stop babysitting", or "no hand-holding", or wants an agent that solves problems on its own, especially hands-on engineering and operational tasks. Do not use when the user explicitly wants a tutorial, a verbose walkthrough, or open-ended brainstorming.
4,964SKILL.mdUpdated Aug 1, 2026
tech-leads-club/the-jury
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Use when a question, decision, plan, tradeoff, or claim needs a rigorous verdict and one perspective is not enough. Spawns a panel of 3 to 5 subagent jurors that form independent blind opinions, deliberate anonymously under an anti-anchoring and anti-sycophancy protocol, and return one committed verdict with confidence, preserved dissent, and a concrete next action. Domain-agnostic across engineering, architecture, data, product, hiring, strategy, vendor choice, build-vs-buy, and research design. Trigger phrases include "convene a jury", "have agents debate and decide", "get a panel to decide", "multi-agent decision", "stress-test this and decide", "monte um juri", "tribunal de agentes", "painel para decidir". Do NOT use to only critique without deciding (use the-fool for that), to build a plan or write the solution itself, or for simple factual lookups.
4,964SKILL.mdUpdated Aug 1, 2026
tech-leads-club/evolutionary-modular-architecture
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Guides design and implementation of evolutionary modular-monolith platforms with DDD (strategic + tactical), flat-by-aggregate organization, an Anti-Corruption Layer for vendor independence, a transactional outbox for events, smart resilience (backoff with jitter, circuit breakers, idempotency), and a polished architecture HTML document with elegant SVG diagrams. Use when designing a platform or backend, defining bounded contexts, organizing modules and folders, choosing monolith vs microservices, decoupling from an external service (ERP, storage, AI), making calls resilient, adding real-time push, picking a 2026 TypeScript stack (Nx, NestJS, React), or producing an architecture document or diagram. Also triggers on 'modular monolith', 'bounded contexts', 'flat-by-aggregate', 'ports and adapters', 'architecture diagram'. Do NOT use for simple CRUD, NestJS-only deep implementation (use nestjs-modular-monolith), or pure domain-model review (use tactical-ddd).
4,964SKILL.mdUpdated Aug 1, 2026