coding-standards

name	coding-standards
description	Cross-language coding standards for Python, TypeScript, and Go covering naming, SOLID design, code smell removal, and comment philosophy. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring production code for maintainability.

Coding Standards

Write code that is obvious to change: clear names, small units, stable abstractions, and comments that explain intent rather than syntax.

When to Activate

• Rename ambiguous identifiers
• Split oversized functions or modules
• Introduce a new abstraction or interface
• Review a pull request for maintainability drift
• Add comments around non-obvious behavior
• Remove dead code after a feature change
• Port logic between Python, TypeScript, and Go

Naming

Language	Types	Functions	Variables	Constants
Python	PascalCase	snake_case	snake_case	UPPER_SNAKE_CASE
TypeScript	PascalCase	camelCase	camelCase	UPPER_SNAKE_CASE for module constants
Go	PascalCase exported, camelCase internal	camelCase	camelCase	PascalCase or camelCase scoped to package

Rules:

• Prefer names that reveal domain meaning, not implementation detail.
• Boolean names should read as predicates: is_active, hasAccess, canRetry.
• File names should match the dominant abstraction.

SOLID Without Ceremony

Principle	Apply As	Avoid
Single Responsibility	One unit changes for one reason	Utility files collecting unrelated behavior
Open/Closed	Extend via composition, interfaces, data-driven config	Switch chains duplicated across modules
Liskov	Keep subtype behavior substitutable	Hidden preconditions in implementations
Interface Segregation	Small focused interfaces	God interfaces with optional methods
Dependency Inversion	Depend on abstractions at boundaries	Concrete infrastructure leaking into business logic

Python

class PriceCalculator:
    def total(self, items: list[LineItem]) -> Decimal:
        return sum((item.total for item in items), start=Decimal("0"))

TypeScript

export interface PaymentGateway {
  charge(input: ChargeInput): Promise<ChargeResult>;
}

Code Smells

Smell	Signal	Refactor
Long function	More than one phase or branching matrix	Extract helpers by intent
Primitive obsession	Raw strings for domain identifiers	Introduce value objects or typed aliases
Shotgun surgery	One rule changed in many files	Centralize policy
Boolean parameter explosion	doThing(x, true, false, true)	Split commands or use typed options
Dead code	Unreachable branches, unused exports	Delete it

Comment Philosophy

Write Comments For	Do Not Comment
Non-obvious constraints	Syntax the reader can already see
External protocol quirks	Temporary debugging leftovers
Performance tradeoffs	Repeating function names in prose
Security-sensitive assumptions	Commented-out dead code

BAD

def normalize_email(email: str) -> str:
    # Lowercase the email
    return email.lower()

GOOD

def normalize_email(email: str) -> str:
    # Login matching is case-insensitive across legacy providers.
    return email.strip().lower()

BAD

function handle(user: any, flag1: boolean, flag2: boolean) {
  if (flag1) {
    // ...
  }
}

GOOD

type HandleMode = "create" | "update";

interface HandleOptions {
  mode: HandleMode;
  sendNotification: boolean;
}

function handleUser(user: UserInput, options: HandleOptions) {
  if (options.mode === "create") {
    // ...
  }
}

No Speculative Abstractions

Situation	Preferred	Avoid
Unused helper after refactor	Delete it in the same change	Leave for "future use"
One implementation today	Concrete type with clean seam	Factory + interface + registry on day one
Feature flag fully rolled out	Remove flag path	Carry stale branches indefinitely

Checklist

• Names encode domain meaning and read naturally
• Each function has one clear job
• Abstractions solve a present need, not a hypothetical one
• Comments explain why a constraint exists
• Unused code and commented-out blocks are removed
• Boolean argument lists are replaced with clearer APIs where needed
• Cross-module dependencies flow inward toward business logic
• Examples and tests still compile after refactors