Coding Standards

Universal Coding Standards

Technical Anti-patterns (Red Flag Patterns)

Immediately stop and reconsider design when detecting the following patterns:

Code Quality Anti-patterns

1. Writing similar code 3 or more times - Violates Rule of Three
2. Multiple responsibilities mixed in a single file - Violates Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)
3. Defining same content in multiple files - Violates DRY principle
4. Making changes without checking dependencies - Potential for unexpected impacts
5. Disabling code with comments - Should use version control
6. Error suppression - Hiding problems creates technical debt
7. Excessive use of type assertions (as) - Abandoning type safety

Design Anti-patterns

• "Make it work for now" thinking - Accumulation of technical debt
• Patchwork implementation - Unplanned additions to existing code
• Optimistic implementation of uncertain technology - Designing unknown elements assuming "it'll probably work"
• Symptomatic fixes - Surface-level fixes that don't solve root causes
• Unplanned large-scale changes - Lack of incremental approach

Basic Principles

• Aggressive Refactoring - Prevent technical debt and maintain health
• No Unused "Just in Case" Code - Violates YAGNI principle (Kent Beck)

Comment Writing Rules

• Function Description Focus: Describe what the code "does"
• No Historical Information: Do not record development history
• Timeless: Write only content that remains valid whenever read
• Conciseness: Keep explanations to necessary minimum

Error Handling Fundamentals

Fail-Fast Principle

Fail quickly on errors to prevent processing continuation in invalid states. Error suppression is prohibited.

For detailed implementation methods (Result type, custom error classes, layered error handling, etc.), refer to language and framework-specific rules.

Rule of Three - Criteria for Code Duplication

How to handle duplicate code based on Martin Fowler's "Refactoring":

Criteria for Commonalization

Cases for Commonalization

• Business logic duplication
• Complex processing algorithms
• Areas likely requiring bulk changes
• Validation rules

Cases to Avoid Commonalization

• Accidental matches (coincidentally same code)
• Possibility of evolving in different directions
• Significant readability decrease from commonalization
• Simple helpers in test code

Common Failure Patterns and Avoidance Methods

Pattern 1: Error Fix Chain

Symptom: Fixing one error causes new errors Cause: Surface-level fixes without understanding root cause Avoidance: Identify root cause with 5 Whys before fixing

Pattern 2: Abandoning Type Safety

Symptom: Excessive use of any type or as Cause: Impulse to avoid type errors Avoidance: Handle safely with unknown type and type guards

Pattern 3: Implementation Without Sufficient Testing

Symptom: Many bugs after implementation Cause: Ignoring Red-Green-Refactor process Avoidance: Always start with failing tests

Pattern 4: Ignoring Technical Uncertainty

Symptom: Frequent unexpected errors when introducing new technology Cause: Assuming "it should work according to official documentation" without prior investigation Avoidance:

• Record certainty evaluation at the beginning of task files
• For low certainty cases, create minimal verification code first

Pattern 5: Insufficient Existing Code Investigation

Symptom: Duplicate implementations, architecture inconsistency, integration failures Cause: Insufficient understanding of existing code before implementation Avoidance Methods:

• Before implementation, always search for similar functionality (using domain, responsibility, configuration patterns as keywords)
• Similar functionality found -> Use that implementation (do not create new implementation)
• Similar functionality is technical debt -> Create ADR improvement proposal before implementation
• No similar functionality exists -> Implement new functionality following existing design philosophy
• Record all decisions and rationale in "Existing Codebase Analysis" section of Design Doc

Debugging Techniques

1. Error Analysis Procedure

1. Read error message (first line) accurately
2. Focus on first and last of stack trace
3. Identify first line where your code appears

2. 5 Whys - Root Cause Analysis

Symptom: Build error
Why1: Type definitions don't match -> Why2: Interface was updated
Why3: Dependency change -> Why4: Package update impact
Why5: Major version upgrade with breaking changes
Root cause: Inappropriate version specification

3. Minimal Reproduction Code

To isolate problems, attempt reproduction with minimal code:

• Remove unrelated parts
• Replace external dependencies with mocks
• Create minimal configuration that reproduces problem

Type Safety Fundamentals

Type Safety Principle: Use unknown type with type guards. any type disables type checking and causes runtime errors.

any Type Alternatives (Priority Order)

1. unknown Type + Type Guards: Use for validating external input
2. Generics: When type flexibility is needed
3. Union Types/Intersection Types: Combinations of multiple types
4. Type Assertions (Last Resort): Only when type is certain

Type Guard Implementation Pattern

function isUser(value: unknown): value is User {
  return typeof value === 'object' && value !== null && 'id' in value && 'name' in value
}

Type Complexity Management

• Field Count: Up to 20 (split by responsibility if exceeded, external API types are exceptions)
• Optional Ratio: Up to 30% (separate required/optional if exceeded)
• Nesting Depth: Up to 3 levels (flatten if exceeded)
• Type Assertions: Review design if used 3+ times
• External API Types: Relax constraints and define according to reality (convert appropriately internally)

Refactoring Techniques

Basic Policy

• Small Steps: Maintain always-working state through gradual improvements
• Safe Changes: Minimize the scope of changes at once
• Behavior Guarantee: Ensure existing behavior remains unchanged while proceeding

Implementation Procedure: Understand Current State -> Gradual Changes -> Behavior Verification -> Final Validation

Priority: Duplicate Code Removal > Large Function Division > Complex Conditional Branch Simplification > Type Safety Improvement

Implementation Completeness Assurance

Required Procedure for Impact Analysis

Completion Criteria: Complete all 3 stages

1. Discovery

Grep -n "TargetClass\|TargetMethod" -o content
Grep -n "DependencyClass" -o content
Grep -n "targetData\|SetData\|UpdateData" -o content

2. Understanding

Mandatory: Read all discovered files and include necessary parts in context:

• Caller's purpose and context
• Dependency direction
• Data flow: generation -> modification -> reference

3. Identification

Structured impact report (mandatory):

## Impact Analysis
### Direct Impact: ClassA, ClassB (with reasons)
### Indirect Impact: SystemX, ComponentY (with integration paths)
### Processing Flow: Input -> Process1 -> Process2 -> Output

Important: Do not stop at search; execute all 3 stages

Unused Code Deletion Rule

When unused code is detected -> Will it be used?

• Yes -> Implement immediately (no deferral allowed)
• No -> Delete immediately (remains in Git history)

Target: Code, documentation, configuration files

Red-Green-Refactor Process (Test-First Development)

Recommended Principle: Always start code changes with tests

Development Steps:

1. Red: Write test for expected behavior (it fails)
2. Green: Pass test with minimal implementation
3. Refactor: Improve code while maintaining passing tests

NG Cases (Test-first not required):

• Pure configuration file changes (.env, config, etc.)
• Documentation-only updates (README, comments, etc.)
• Emergency production incident response (post-incident tests mandatory)

Test Design Principles

Test Case Structure

• Tests consist of three stages: "Arrange," "Act," "Assert"
• Clear naming that shows purpose of each test
• One test case verifies only one behavior

Test Data Management

• Manage test data in dedicated directories
• Define test-specific environment variable values
• Always mock sensitive information
• Keep test data minimal, using only data directly related to test case verification purposes

Mock and Stub Usage Policy

Recommended: Mock external dependencies in unit tests

• Merit: Ensures test independence and reproducibility
• Practice: Mock DB, API, file system, and other external dependencies

Avoid: Actual external connections in unit tests

• Reason: Slows test speed and causes environment-dependent problems

Test Failure Response Decision Criteria

Fix tests: Wrong expected values, references to non-existent features, dependence on implementation details, implementation only for tests Fix implementation: Valid specifications, business logic, important edge cases When in doubt: Confirm with user

Test Granularity Principles

Core Principle: Observable Behavior Only

MUST Test: Public APIs, return values, exceptions, external calls, persisted state MUST NOT Test: Private methods, internal state, algorithm implementation details

Security Principles

Secure Defaults

• Store credentials and secrets through environment variables or dedicated secret managers
• Use parameterized queries (prepared statements) for all database access
• Use established cryptographic libraries provided by the language or framework
• Generate security-critical values (tokens, IDs, nonces) with cryptographically secure random generators
• Encrypt sensitive data at rest and in transit using standard protocols

Input and Output Boundaries

• Validate all external input at system entry points for expected format, type, and length
• Encode output appropriately for its rendering context (HTML, SQL, shell, URL)
• Return only information necessary for the caller in error responses; log detailed diagnostics server-side

Access Control

• Apply authentication to all entry points that handle user data or trigger state changes
• Verify authorization for each resource access, not only at the entry point
• Grant only the permissions required for the operation (files, database connections, API scopes)

Knowledge Cutoff Supplement (2026-03)

• OWASP Top 10:2025 shifted from symptoms to root causes; added "Software Supply Chain Failures" (A03) and "Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions" (A10)
• Recent research indicates AI-generated code shows elevated rates of access control gaps — treat authentication and authorization as high-priority review targets
• OpenSSF published "Security-Focused Guide for AI Code Assistant Instructions" — recommends language-specific, actionable constraints over generic advice
• For detailed detection patterns, see references/security-checks.md

Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.