| name | coding-discipline |
| description | Language-agnostic behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use for ANY coding task (all languages) to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions before coding, and define verifiable success criteria. Applies behavioral rigor—separate from language-specific technical standards. |
| license | MIT |
Coding Discipline
Behavioral guidelines to improve code implementation rigor, derived from observations on how agents can fail when writing code.
Tradeoff: These guidelines 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 your 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.
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.
How to Know It's Working
These guidelines are working if you see:
- Fewer unnecessary changes in diffs—only requested changes appear
- Fewer rewrites due to overcomplication—code is simple the first time
- Clarifying questions come before implementation—not after mistakes
- Clean, minimal PRs—no drive-by refactoring or "improvements"
Examples
For concrete examples demonstrating each principle and common mistakes, see examples.md.
