codebase-design

Files (3)

• DEEPENING.md
• SKILL.md
• openai.yaml · agents/

SKILL.md (first lines)

# Codebase Design

Design **deep modules**: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface, placed at a clean seam, testable through that interface. Use this language and these principles wherever code is being designed or restructured. The aim is leverage for callers, locality for maintainers, and testability for everyone.

## Glossary

Use these terms when they make a design distinction precise. Existing project language still wins, and common words such as component, service, API, or boundary remain valid when they name the actual project concept.

**Module** — anything with an interface and an implementation. Deliberately scale-agnostic: a function, class, package, or tier-spanning slice. _Avoid_: unit, component, service.

**Interface** — everything a caller must know to use the module correctly: the type signature, but also invariants, ordering constraints, error modes, required configuration, and performance characteristics. _Avoid_: API, signature (too narrow — they refer only to the type-level surface).

**Implementation** — what's inside a module, its body of code. Distinct from **Adapter**: a thing can be a small adapter with a large implementation (a Postgres repo) or a large adapter with a small implementation (an in-memory fake). Reach for "adapter" when the seam is the topic; "implementation" otherwise.

**Depth** — leverage at the interface: the amount of behaviour a caller (or test) can exercise per unit of interface they have to learn. A module is **deep** when a large amount of behaviour sits behind a small interface, **shallow** when the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation.

**Seam** _(Michael Feathers)_ — a place where you can alter behaviour without editing in that place; the *location* at which a module's interface lives. Where to put the seam is its own design decision, distinct from what goes behind it. _Avoid_: boundary (overloaded with DDD's bounded context).

**Adapter** — a concrete thing that satisfies an interface at a seam. Describes *role* (what slot it fills), not substance (what's inside).

**Leverage** — what callers get from depth: more capability per unit of interface they learn. One implementation pays back across N call sites and M tests.

**Locality** — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge, and verification concentrate in one place rather than spreading across callers. Fix once, fixed everywhere.

## Deep vs shallow

**Deep module** = small interface + lots of implementation:

```
┌─────────────────────┐
│   Small Interface   │  ← Few methods, simple params
├─────────────────────┤
│                     │
│  Deep Implementation│  ← Complex logic hidden
│                     │
└─────────────────────┘
```

**Shallow module** = large interface + little implementation (avoid):

```
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│       Large Interface           │  ← Many methods, complex params
├─────────────────────────────────┤
│  Thin Implementation            │  ← Just passes through
└─────────────────────────────────┘
```

When designing an interface, ask:

- Can I reduce the number of methods?
- Can I simplify the parameters?
- Can I hide more complexity inside?

## Principles

- **Depth is a property of the interface, not the implementation.** A deep module can be internally composed of small, mockable, swappable parts — they just aren't part of the interface. A module can have **internal seams** (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the **external seam** at its interface.
- **The deletion test.** Imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, it was a pass-through. If complexity reappears across N callers, it was earning its keep.
- **The interface is the test surface.** Callers and tests cross the same seam. If you want to test *past* the interface, the module is probably the wrong shape.
- **Variation earns a seam.** One adapter alone rarely justifies an abstraction. Introduce the seam when callers need a stable contract, tests need a genuine replacement point, or more than one real implementation exists.

## Designing for testability

Good interfaces make testing natural:

1. **Accept dependencies, don't create them.**

   ```typescript
   // Testable
   function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {}

   // Hard to test
   function processOrder(order) {
     const gateway = new StripeGateway();
   }
   ```

2. **Return results, don't produce side effects.**

   ```typescript
   // Testable
   function calculateDiscount(cart): Discount {}

   // Hard to test
   function applyDiscount(cart): void {
     cart.total -= discount;
   }
   ```

3. **Small surface area.** Fewer methods = fewer tests needed. Fewer params = simpler test setup.

## Relationships

- A **Module** presents one or more deliberate **Interfaces** to its callers and tests. Each interface should hide more complexity than it exposes.
- **Depth** is a property of a **Module**, measured against its **Interface**.
- A **Seam** is where a **Module**'s **Interface** lives.
- An **Adapter** sits at a **Seam** and satisfies the **Interface**.
- **Depth** produces **Leverage** for callers and **Locality** for maintainers.

## Rejected framings

- **Depth as ratio of implementation-lines to interface-lines** (Ousterhout): rewards padding the implementation. We use depth-as-leverage instead.
- **"Interface" as the TypeScript `interface` keyword or a class's public methods**: too narrow — interface here includes every fact a caller must know.
- **"Boundary"**: overloaded with DDD's bounded context. Say **seam** or **interface**.

## Finding useful design work

Start from current pain rather than an architecture ceremony. Look for policy repeated across callers, pass-through modules, orchestration files that own unrelated decisions, changes that scatter across many paths, and tests that must reach through public behavior to control internals.

Rank candidates by the caller burden they remove, the knowledge they localize, and the real changes they make easier. Use current call sites, defects, and change history as evidence. Do not create a seam for a hypothetical future implementation.

Match design effort to uncertainty and the cost of changing direction:

- **Clear, local design.** Inspect actual callers and tests, then recommend directly.
- **Meaningful interface choice.** Compare materially different designs in the parent. Show interface sketches, realistic caller usage, important invariants, and concrete tradeoffs rather than variations in naming.
- **Costly choice with unresolved assumptions.** Use independent designers only when distinct exploration could expose an assumption or change the recommendation. Give them the same caller needs and constraints, with different plausible design approaches. Choose the number of agents from the useful design lanes, not a fixed minimum.

Judge alternatives by caller burden, correctness, change locality, testability, and migration cost. Recommend the strongest design and explain why. Stop when further comparison is unlikely to change the choice.

From cx18121/agent-skills, MIT.

More from cx18121/agent-skills