
Code Quality Principles
- 161 installs
- 325 repo stars
- Updated August 2, 2026
- athola/claude-night-market
Keep refactors and reviews aligned with KISS, YAGNI, and SOLID so agent-generated code does not accumulate clever abstractions.
About
code-quality-principles is a compact always-on agent skill from the Claude Night Market collection that steers solo builders toward KISS, YAGNI, and SOLID when refactoring or reviewing code for over-engineering. It is not a linter replacement; it supplies decision tables, anti-pattern examples, and readable alternatives in languages such as Python and Rust so coding agents prefer obvious control flow over clever abstractions. Use it whenever you want maintainability guardrails during Ship review or mid-Build cleanup, and skip it for one-off migrations or hotspots where documented performance tradeoffs trump readability. Because alwaysApply is set, the skill nudges everyday edits without a separate invoke ritual—ideal for Cursor or Claude Code sessions where scope creep is the main risk. The guidance fits SaaS backends, CLIs, and APIs where a single founder still owns every layer.
- Encodes KISS, YAGNI, and SOLID with prefer/avoid tables and language-specific examples
- alwaysApply: true so the agent weighs simplicity principles during ordinary edits
- Documents When NOT To Use: throwaway scripts and justified performance readability tradeoffs
- Pairs Python and Rust snippets showing clever one-liners versus explicit loops and types
- Estimated ~600 tokens; complexity low with fast model hint for lightweight guardrails
Code Quality Principles by the numbers
- 161 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- Ranked #368 of 1,352 Code Review & Quality skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Security screen: LOW risk (skills.sh audit)
- Data as of Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market --skill code-quality-principlesAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 161 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 325 |
| Security audit | 3 / 3 scanners passed |
| Last updated | August 2, 2026 |
| Repository | athola/claude-night-market ↗ |
What it does
Keep refactors and reviews aligned with KISS, YAGNI, and SOLID so agent-generated code does not accumulate clever abstractions.
Files
Code Quality Principles
Guidance on KISS, YAGNI, and SOLID principles with language-specific examples.
When To Use
- Improving code readability and maintainability
- Applying SOLID, KISS, YAGNI principles during refactoring
When NOT To Use
- Throwaway scripts or one-time data migrations
- Performance-critical code where readability trades are justified
KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
Principle: Avoid unnecessary complexity. Prefer obvious solutions over clever ones.
Guidelines
| Prefer | Avoid |
|---|---|
| Simple conditionals | Complex regex for simple checks |
| Explicit code | Magic numbers/strings |
| Standard patterns | Clever shortcuts |
| Direct solutions | Over-abstracted layers |
Python Example
# Bad: Overly clever one-liner
users = [u for u in (db.get(id) for id in ids) if u and u.active and not u.banned]
# Good: Clear and readable
users = []
for user_id in ids:
user = db.get(user_id)
if user and user.active and not user.banned:
users.append(user)Rust Example
// Bad: Unnecessary complexity
fn process(data: &[u8]) -> Result<Vec<u8>, Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
data.iter()
.map(|&b| b.checked_add(1).ok_or("overflow"))
.collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>>()
.map_err(|e| e.into())
}
// Good: Simple and clear
fn process(data: &[u8]) -> Result<Vec<u8>, &'static str> {
let mut result = Vec::with_capacity(data.len());
for &byte in data {
result.push(byte.checked_add(1).ok_or("overflow")?);
}
Ok(result)
}YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It)
Principle: Don't implement features until they are actually needed.
Guidelines
| Do | Don't |
|---|---|
| Solve current problem | Build for hypothetical futures |
| Add when 3rd use case appears | Create abstractions for 1 use case |
| Delete dead code | Keep "just in case" code |
| Minimal viable solution | Premature optimization |
Python Example
# Bad: Premature abstraction for one use case
class AbstractDataProcessor:
def process(self, data): ...
def validate(self, data): ...
def transform(self, data): ...
class CSVProcessor(AbstractDataProcessor):
def process(self, data):
return self.transform(self.validate(data))
# Good: Simple function until more cases appear
def process_csv(data: list[str]) -> list[dict]:
return [parse_row(row) for row in data if row.strip()]TypeScript Example
// Bad: Over-engineered config system
interface ConfigProvider<T> {
get<K extends keyof T>(key: K): T[K];
set<K extends keyof T>(key: K, value: T[K]): void;
watch<K extends keyof T>(key: K, callback: (v: T[K]) => void): void;
}
// Good: Simple config for current needs
const config = {
apiUrl: process.env.API_URL || 'http://localhost:3000',
timeout: 5000,
};SOLID Principles
Single Responsibility Principle
Each module/class should have one reason to change.
# Bad: Multiple responsibilities
class UserManager:
def create_user(self, data): ...
def send_welcome_email(self, user): ... # Email responsibility
def generate_report(self, users): ... # Reporting responsibility
# Good: Separated responsibilities
class UserRepository:
def create(self, data): ...
class EmailService:
def send_welcome(self, user): ...
class UserReportGenerator:
def generate(self, users): ...Open/Closed Principle
Open for extension, closed for modification.
# Bad: Requires modification for new types
def calculate_area(shape):
if shape.type == "circle":
return 3.14 * shape.radius ** 2
elif shape.type == "rectangle":
return shape.width * shape.height
# Must modify to add new shapes
# Good: Extensible without modification
from abc import ABC, abstractmethod
class Shape(ABC):
@abstractmethod
def area(self) -> float: ...
class Circle(Shape):
def __init__(self, radius: float):
self.radius = radius
def area(self) -> float:
return 3.14 * self.radius ** 2Liskov Substitution Principle
Subtypes must be substitutable for their base types.
# Bad: Violates LSP - Square changes Rectangle behavior
class Rectangle:
def set_width(self, w): self.width = w
def set_height(self, h): self.height = h
class Square(Rectangle): # Breaks when used as Rectangle
def set_width(self, w):
self.width = self.height = w # Unexpected side effect
# Good: Separate types with common interface
class Shape(ABC):
@abstractmethod
def area(self) -> float: ...
class Rectangle(Shape):
def __init__(self, width: float, height: float): ...
class Square(Shape):
def __init__(self, side: float): ...Interface Segregation Principle
Clients shouldn't depend on interfaces they don't use.
// Bad: Fat interface
interface Worker {
work(): void;
eat(): void;
sleep(): void;
}
// Good: Segregated interfaces
interface Workable {
work(): void;
}
interface Feedable {
eat(): void;
}
// Clients only implement what they need
class Robot implements Workable {
work(): void { /* ... */ }
}Dependency Inversion Principle
Depend on abstractions, not concretions.
# Bad: Direct dependency on concrete class
class OrderService:
def __init__(self):
self.db = PostgresDatabase() # Tight coupling
# Good: Depend on abstraction
from abc import ABC, abstractmethod
class Database(ABC):
@abstractmethod
def save(self, data): ...
class OrderService:
def __init__(self, db: Database):
self.db = db # Injected abstractionQuick Reference
| Principle | Question to Ask | Red Flag |
|---|---|---|
| KISS | "Is there a simpler way?" | Complex solution for simple problem |
| YAGNI | "Do I need this right now?" | Building for hypothetical use cases |
| SRP | "What's the one reason to change?" | Class doing multiple jobs |
| OCP | "Can I extend without modifying?" | Switch statements for types |
| LSP | "Can subtypes replace base types?" | Overridden methods with side effects |
| ISP | "Does client need all methods?" | Empty method implementations |
| DIP | "Am I depending on abstractions?" | new keyword in business logic |
When Principles Conflict
1. KISS vs SOLID: For small projects, KISS wins. Add SOLID patterns as complexity grows. 2. YAGNI vs DIP: Don't add abstractions until you have 2+ implementations. 3. Readability vs DRY: Prefer slight duplication over wrong abstraction.
Integration with Code Review
When reviewing code, check:
- [ ] No unnecessary complexity (KISS)
- [ ] No speculative features (YAGNI)
- [ ] Each class has single responsibility (SRP)
- [ ] No god classes (> 500 lines)
- [ ] Dependencies are injected, not created (DIP)
Verification: Run wc -l <file> to check line counts and rg -c "class " <file> (or grep -c "class " <file>) to count classes per file.
Related Skills
imbue:karpathy-principles- The "Simplicity First" principle wraps KISS, YAGNI, and SOLID into a four-principle synthesis derived from Karpathy's observations on LLM coding pitfalls- See
docs/quality-gates.md#skill-level-quality-gate-compositionfor the full gate-skill federation graph
Exit Criteria
- [ ] Every proposed code change checked against the integration
review checklist: no unnecessary complexity (KISS), no speculative features (YAGNI), single responsibility per class (SRP), no god classes over 500 lines, dependencies injected not created (DIP)
- [ ] When KISS and SOLID conflict, the resolution is documented:
KISS wins for small projects, SOLID patterns applied as complexity grows. The choice is explicit, not silent
- [ ]
wc -l <file>run on any modified file and result noted if
the file exceeds 500 lines (god-class threshold)
- [ ] No new abstraction introduced with only one implementor unless
it serves as a mock boundary for testing
Related skills
FAQ
Is Code Quality Principles safe to install?
skills.sh reports 3 of 3 security scanners passed. Review the Security Audits panel on this page before installing in production.