solid-hunter-py

name	solid-hunter-py
description	Audit Python class and interface design for SOLID violations — god classes, rigid extension points, broken substitutability, fat ABCs/Protocols, and concrete dependency chains. Focuses on responsibility assignment and abstraction fitness. Use when: reviewing class hierarchies, preparing for extension with new variants, reducing coupling between services, or improving testability of class-heavy code. Reports omit empty sections — no placeholder headings, empty tables, or negative statements like "no issues found".
disable-model-invocation	true

SOLID Hunter

Audit Python code for SOLID principle violations at the class and interface level — places where responsibilities are misassigned, extension requires modification, subtypes break contracts, ABCs/Protocols force unused dependencies, or classes are wired to concrete implementations. The goal: classes have clear responsibilities, extend without modification, substitute safely, expose cohesive interfaces, and depend on abstractions.

When to Use

• Reviewing class hierarchies and inheritance structures
• Preparing a codebase for extension with new variants or strategies
• Reducing coupling between service classes
• Improving testability by enabling dependency injection
• After prototyping, when class responsibilities need sharpening

Core Principles

1. Single Responsibility (SRP). A class should have one reason to change — one actor, one domain concern. When a class serves multiple actors (e.g., persistence AND presentation), changes for one actor risk breaking the other. This is about responsibility assignment, not method count.

2. Open/Closed (OCP). A class should be open for extension but closed for modification. Adding a new variant or behavior should not require editing existing code. Extension points — strategy Protocols, plugin hooks, polymorphic dispatch — allow new behavior without touching proven code.

3. Liskov Substitution (LSP). A subtype must be usable wherever its base type is expected, without the caller knowing or caring. Overrides must honor the base contract: same preconditions or weaker, same postconditions or stronger. If a subclass raises NotImplementedError on an inherited method or silently ignores it, the substitution is broken.

4. Interface Segregation (ISP). No client should be forced to depend on methods it does not use. Fat ABCs or Protocols that bundle unrelated capabilities force implementors into stub methods and callers into unnecessary coupling. Split into role-specific Protocols that each describe one capability.

5. Dependency Inversion (DIP). High-level policy should not depend on low-level detail — both should depend on abstractions. When a service class instantiates its own dependencies or accepts concrete types in its __init__, it becomes untestable and unchangeable without editing the class itself.

Pragmatic Boundaries

SOLID principles are guidelines for managing change, not rules to apply universally. Do not flag:

• Value objects, dataclasses, and DTOs — data carriers don't need DIP or ISP; they are the data.
• Single-implementation Protocols/ABCs created speculatively — a Protocol with no second implementation and no test double is premature abstraction (simplicity-hunter territory). Note: DIP may recommend introducing a Protocol for a service dependency to enable testing or replacement. The distinction is intent: DIP Protocols exist for decoupling service dependencies; speculative Protocols exist "in case we need a second implementation someday."
• Functional-style code — modules that use plain functions and composition rather than classes are not SOLID violations; SOLID applies to class-based design.
• Exhaustive match/if-elif on closed unions — when the union is intentionally finite and every consumer handles all variants, this is not an OCP violation. Flag only when the chain appears in many places and new variants require editing all of them.

What to Hunt

1. SRP Violations — God Classes

Classes that accumulate responsibilities from multiple domain concerns, becoming the "hub" that everything touches.

Signals:

• Class with 10+ public methods spanning different domain concepts
• __init__ with 5+ dependencies (high fan-in = multiple reasons to change)
• Class that imports from many unrelated modules (e.g., persistence, HTTP, formatting)
• Filename or class name that uses vague terms: Manager, Handler, Service, Utils, Helper with broad scope
• Class where half the methods don't use half the instance attributes

Action: Identify distinct responsibilities. Extract each into a focused class. The original class becomes a coordinator that delegates, or is dissolved entirely.

2. OCP Violations — Rigid Extension Points

Code that must be modified — not extended — when a new variant, strategy, or behavior is added.

Signals:

• if/elif chains on a type discriminant that appear in 3+ locations across the codebase
• Adding a new variant requires editing multiple files beyond the variant definition itself
• Hard-coded strategy selection (if type == 'email': send_email(); elif type == 'sms': send_sms())
• Factory functions with growing if/elif statements and no registration mechanism
• Boolean parameters that toggle between two fundamentally different behaviors

Action: Introduce a strategy/plugin pattern: define a Protocol for the variant behavior, implement per variant, dispatch polymorphically via a dict mapping or registry. The core class should not know about individual variants.

3. LSP Violations — Broken Substitution

Subclasses or Protocol/ABC implementations that violate the contract of their base type.

Signals:

• Override method that raises NotImplementedError or similar
• Override that silently returns a no-op value (empty list, None) instead of performing the base behavior
• Subclass that narrows accepted input beyond what the base type declares
• Subclass that widens error cases (raises where base does not)
• isinstance checks in consumer code to handle a specific subclass differently

Action: If the subclass genuinely cannot support the base contract, the inheritance is wrong. Extract the shared behavior into a separate Protocol or use composition instead of inheritance.

4. ISP Violations — Fat Interfaces

ABCs or Protocols that bundle unrelated capabilities, forcing implementors to depend on methods they don't use.

Signals:

• ABC/Protocol with 8+ methods where implementors leave some as stubs or raise
• A class that implements an ABC but only uses 2-3 of its methods
• Protocol that combines query methods (read) with command methods (write) when some consumers only read
• "God interface" pattern: one ABC for an entire subsystem

Action: Split into role-specific Protocols (e.g., Readable, Writable instead of ReadWriteStore). Clients depend only on the Protocol slice they use.

5. DIP Violations — Concrete Dependency Chains

High-level classes that directly depend on low-level implementations instead of abstractions.

Signals:

• Instantiating concrete services inside a method (self.client = EmailClient() in __init__)
• __init__ parameter typed as a concrete class instead of a Protocol
• Direct imports of infrastructure implementations (database client, HTTP library) in domain/application classes
• Classmethods that call concrete utility classes that could be injected

Action: Define a Protocol for the dependency. Accept the Protocol in __init__. Wire the concrete implementation at the composition root (app startup, DI container, factory).

Note: Direct instantiation of dataclasses, value objects, and builders is fine — DIP applies to service dependencies that represent behavior, not data construction.

Audit Workflow

Phase 1: Gain Context

1. Resolve audit surface. The prompt may specify the scope as:
   • Diff: files changed on the current branch vs base (main/master)
   • Path: specific files, folders, or layers
   • Codebase: the entire project If unspecified, default to codebase. For diff mode, resolve the file list:

   BASE=$(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@' || echo main)
   SCOPE=$(git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD $BASE)...HEAD)
   

   Constrain all subsequent scans to the resolved surface.
2. Identify whether the project uses class-based architecture (services, repositories, controllers — common with Django, FastAPI with classes, or DI frameworks) or functional-style composition. If primarily functional, note this in the report — SOLID findings will be limited.
3. Identify the composition root (where dependencies are wired: app entry point, DI container, factory modules).

Phase 2: Scan for SOLID Signals

EXCLUDE='--glob !**/*_test.py --glob !**/test_*.py --glob !**/tests/** --glob !**/venv/** --glob !**/.venv/** --glob !**/dist/**'

# Classes (starting point for SRP, DIP analysis)
rg 'class\s+\w+' --type py $EXCLUDE

# ABCs and Protocols (starting point for ISP analysis)
rg '(ABC|Protocol)\b' --type py $EXCLUDE

# Inheritance (extends/implements relationships)
rg --pcre2 'class\s+\w+\s*\([^)]+\)' --type py $EXCLUDE

# Direct instantiation in non-factory code (DIP signal)
rg --pcre2 'self\.\w+\s*=\s*\w+\(' --type py $EXCLUDE

# isinstance checks (LSP signal — caller sniffing subtypes)
rg 'isinstance\s*\(' --type py $EXCLUDE

# if/elif chains (OCP signal)
rg '^\s*elif\s' --type py $EXCLUDE

# NotImplementedError throws (LSP signal)
rg 'NotImplementedError|raise\s+NotImplemented' --type py $EXCLUDE

# @abstractmethod (interface method tracking)
rg '@abstractmethod' --type py $EXCLUDE

Phase 3: Evaluate Each Class and Interface

For each class found in Phase 2:

• SRP: How many distinct responsibilities does it serve? Would a change from one actor require touching methods used by another?
• OCP: If a new variant were added, how many files would need to change? Is this class one of them?
• DIP: Are __init__ dependencies typed as Protocols or concrete classes? Does it instantiate its own service dependencies?

For each ABC/Protocol:

• ISP: How many methods? Do all implementors use all methods? Are there stub implementations?

For each inheritance relationship:

• LSP: Does the subclass fully honor the base contract? Are there isinstance checks that work around broken substitution?

Phase 4: Produce Report

Output Format

Save as YYYY-MM-DD-solid-hunter-audit-{$LLM-name}.md in the project's docs folder (or project root if no docs folder exists).

# SOLID Hunter Audit — {date}

## Scope

- Surface: {diff / path / codebase}
- Files: {count or list}
- Exclusions: {list}
- Architecture style: {class-based / mixed / functional (limited findings)}

## SRP Violations — God Classes

| # | Class | Location | Responsibilities | Dependencies | Action |
| - | ----- | -------- | ---------------- | ------------ | ------ |
| 1 | `OrderService` | file:line | order CRUD + email + invoicing | 7 injected | Split into 3 focused services |

## OCP Violations — Rigid Extension Points

| # | Location | Pattern | Occurrences | Action |
| - | -------- | ------- | ----------- | ------ |
| 1 | file:line | `if/elif` chain with 5 variants in 4 files | 4 | Extract strategy Protocol |

## LSP Violations — Broken Substitution

| # | Class | Base | Location | Violation | Action |
| - | ----- | ---- | -------- | --------- | ------ |
| 1 | `ReadOnlyRepo` | `Repository` | file:line | `save()` raises NotImplementedError | Use composition, not inheritance |

## ISP Violations — Fat Interfaces

| # | Interface | Location | Methods | Avg Used by Implementors | Action |
| - | --------- | -------- | ------- | ------------------------ | ------ |
| 1 | `DataStore` | file:line | 12 | 5 | Split into `Reader` + `Writer` + `Admin` |

## DIP Violations — Concrete Dependencies

| # | Class | Location | Concrete Dependency | Action |
| - | ----- | -------- | ------------------- | ------ |
| 1 | `UserService` | file:line | `EmailClient()` in `__init__` | Inject via Protocol |

## Recommendations (Priority Order)

1. **Must-fix**: {god classes with 5+ responsibilities, broken substitution causing runtime errors}
2. **Should-fix**: {rigid extension points touched by every new variant, fat ABCs with stub methods}
3. **Consider**: {concrete dependency chains limiting testability, speculative Protocol splits}

Operating Constraints

• No code edits. This skill produces an audit report only. Implementation is a separate step.
• No empty sections. Include only categories with findings. Omit a heading, table, or list entirely when it would contain zero items — do not include empty tables, placeholder subsections, or negative statements like "no dead exports", "none found", or "no issues".
• Scope: class and interface design only. Do not flag module boundary issues (→ boundary-hunter-py), type invariants (→ invariant-hunter-py), type design (→ type-hunter-py), structural complexity (→ simplicity-hunter-py), missing documentation (→ doc-hunter-py), security (→ security-hunter-py), test quality (→ test-hunter-py), or cosmetic style (→ slop-hunter-py). If a finding doesn't answer "is this class/interface designed for change?", it doesn't belong here.
• Evidence required. Every finding must cite file/path.py:line with the exact code.
• Pragmatism over dogma. SOLID principles exist to manage change, not to achieve theoretical purity. A class with two related responsibilities that change together is fine. An ABC with five methods that every implementor uses fully is fine. Flag violations that create real maintenance friction, not cosmetic deviations.
• Respect the architecture. Some codebases deliberately use a functional style, or avoid DI in favor of module-level composition. Note the style and calibrate findings accordingly.
• Tension with simplicity-hunter is expected. SOLID may recommend adding an abstraction where simplicity-hunter would recommend removing one. Both are valid lenses. Flag the design issue; let the team decide the trade-off.