| name | connascence-guide |
| description | Use when grading or loosening the coupling between two pieces of code, or judging how cohesive a module is. Triggers on connascence, coupling vs cohesion, 'too tightly coupled', decouple/loosen, the coupling ladder (content/common/control/stamp/data), the cohesion ladder, Law of Demeter / train wrecks like a.b().c(), positional vs named parameters, or reviewing a module boundary for coupling strength — even when the user doesn't say 'connascence' and only says 'tightly coupled'. |
Connascence: a Precise Coupling Vocabulary
Grade a seam by naming its worst coupling and its strongest connascence, then weaken or localize it — "tight/loose" is unactionable.
Essentials
Gotchas
- "Tightly coupled" is not actionable — name the connascence form and the coupling rung, then you know the fix.
- Strong connascence is fine inside one module; it's only a problem across a boundary (rule of locality).
- Control coupling hides as configuration — a behavior flag passed into a shared function recouples its callers; split into two functions.
- Law of Demeter is a heuristic, not a law — fluent builders and pure data pipelines are deliberate exceptions; it targets reaching through a stranger to depend on or mutate its internals.
- Coupling and cohesion trade off — splitting a module to "loosen coupling" can shred its cohesion; grade both before cutting.
Example
SEAM a billing function reaches into an Order's private `total` field
GRADE content coupling (reaches internals) + connascence of meaning across a boundary
FIX Order exposes a neutral `amountDue()` value (rule of degree → data coupling);
billing reads the value — agreement is now named, local, and weak
Progressive Disclosure
