Solid Principles

SOLID Principles

Tactical design principles for class-level decisions, interface design, and dependency management.

When to Use

• Reviewing class design for single responsibility violations
• Evaluating interface design and client dependencies
• Refactoring code with tight coupling or poor testability
• Designing new classes, methods, or abstractions
• Assessing whether to extend or modify existing code

When Not to Use

• Architectural decisions about service boundaries or module structure (use clean-architecture)
• Choosing structural design patterns (use design-patterns)
• Configuring testing strategies (use testable-design)

SOLID Checklist

Apply during code review or design:

Workflow

Step 1: Identify SRP Violations

Output: List of classes with multiple reasons to change.

Ask for each class:

• Does it handle more than one concern (e.g., business logic + persistence + notifications)?
• Would changes to different features require editing this class?

Example:

SRP violation: UserService handles auth, persistence, and notifications.
Refactor: Extract NotificationService and PersistenceGateway.
Validation: Each class now has one reason to change.

Step 2: Check Open-Closed Compliance

Output: List of areas where new features require modifying stable code.

Ask:

• Do new features require editing existing code?
• Could abstraction/polymorphism eliminate the modification?

Example:

OCP violation: Adding payment processor requires editing PaymentService.
Refactor: Extract PaymentProcessor interface + implementations.
Validation: New processors added without touching existing code.

Step 3: Validate Liskov Substitution

Output: Subtypes that break base type contracts.

Check:

• Do subtypes strengthen preconditions or weaken postconditions?
• Do clients need to check types before using them?

Example:

LSP violation: CachedRepository.save() throws exception when cache is full.
Refactor: Base Repository contract promises no exceptions; use Result type instead.

Step 4: Segregate Interfaces

Output: Interfaces split by client needs.

Check:

• Do clients depend on methods they never call?
• Are there multiple unrelated method groups in one interface?

Example:

ISP violation: IUserRepository has save(), find(), and sendNotification().
Refactor: Split into IUserRepository and INotificationService.

Step 5: Invert Dependencies

Output: Abstractions introduced at module boundaries.

Check:

• Do high-level modules depend on low-level modules?
• Are concrete types instantiated in business logic?

Example:

DIP violation: OrderService instantiates PostgresRepository.
Refactor: OrderService depends on IOrderRepository interface.
Injection: Container provides PostgresRepository implementation.

Quick Commands

# Find SRP violations (multiple concerns)
rg -n "class.*Service.*Repository|class.*Manager.*Handler" src

# Find OCP violations (type checks)
rg -n "instanceof|typeof.*==|switch.*type" src

# Find DIP violations (concrete instantiation)
rg -n "new [A-Z].*Repository\(|new [A-Z].*Service\(" src

Anti-Patterns

NEVER apply SOLID as a mechanical checklist to every class

• WHY: SOLID principles are design guidelines, not mandates; applying them without judgment creates unnecessary abstraction layers and over-engineered code in simple domains where change pressure does not exist.
• BAD: Extract an interface for every class because "you should always program to interfaces" (misapplied DIP), resulting in one-implementation interfaces that add indirection with no benefit.
• GOOD: Apply SOLID principles where the design is causing pain — tight coupling, frequent change in one direction, difficulty testing — not as a universal rule regardless of context.

NEVER create God Classes to avoid "too many files"

• WHY: Condensing multiple responsibilities into one class saves file count but creates high coupling, low cohesion, and fragile code where unrelated changes break each other.
• BAD: A UserManager class that handles authentication, profile editing, email notifications, and audit logging — violating SRP by having four distinct reasons to change.
• GOOD: Split into AuthService, UserProfileService, NotificationService, and AuditLog with clear single responsibilities and independent change trajectories.

NEVER confuse ISP with "one method per interface"

• WHY: The Interface Segregation Principle says clients should not depend on methods they do not use; it does not mean every interface must have exactly one method, which leads to over-granularization and interface explosion.
• BAD: Creating dozens of single-method interfaces for every operation (ICanSave, ICanFind, ICanDelete) that are always implemented and injected together.
• GOOD: Group cohesive method sets into role-specific interfaces that represent a single role or behavior contract used by a specific type of client.

NEVER use deep inheritance to satisfy OCP when composition achieves the same result

• WHY: Deep inheritance hierarchies are fragile; subclass changes ripple up the chain, LSP violations are common, and the Open/Closed Principle is better achieved through composition and dependency injection.
• BAD: class PremiumUser extends AuthenticatedUser extends User extends BaseUser to add behavior, creating a four-level hierarchy where changing any layer risks breaking all subclasses.
• GOOD: Inject behavior through composition: new User(new PremiumFeatureSet()) — open for extension by adding new feature sets, closed for modification of the User class itself.

References

SOLID principles are tactical class-level design rules. For architectural decisions (boundaries, modules, dependencies), use the clean-architecture skill.

For detailed SOLID guidance, see the software-design-principles hub (references/detailed-examples.md, references/anti-patterns-and-frameworks.md).

• Martin Fowler on SOLID
• Uncle Bob SOLID Papers