codebase-design
Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-10
- Stars
- ★ 0
- Forks
- 0
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- codebase-design
- description
- Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.
02 资源文件 11
- 参考文档agents/openai.yaml102 B
- 参考文档algorithms.md—
- 参考文档DEEPENING.md2.5 KB
- 参考文档DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md2.6 KB
- 参考文档failure_modes.md—
- 参考文档formulas.md—
- 参考文档implementation_notes.md—
- 参考文档integration_arbitragex.md—
- 参考文档manifest.json—
- 参考文档references.json—
- 参考文档validation_tests.md—
03 SKILL.md 正文
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 exactly: don't substitute "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Consistent language is the whole point.
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.
- One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one. Don't introduce a seam unless something actually varies across it.
Designing for testability
Good interfaces make testing natural:
-
Accept dependencies, don't create them.
// Testable function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {} // Hard to test function processOrder(order) { const gateway = new StripeGateway(); } -
Return results, don't produce side effects.
// Testable function calculateDiscount(cart): Discount {} // Hard to test function applyDiscount(cart): void { cart.total -= discount; } -
Small surface area. Fewer methods = fewer tests needed. Fewer params = simpler test setup.
Relationships
- A Module has exactly one Interface (the surface it presents to callers and tests).
- 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
interfacekeyword 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.
Going deeper
- Deepening a cluster given its dependencies, see DEEPENING.md: dependency categories, seam discipline, and replace-don't-layer testing.
- Exploring alternative interfaces, see DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md: spin up parallel sub-agents to design the interface several radically different ways, then compare on depth, locality, and seam placement.
04 同仓库更多 Skills
improve
暂无简介
create-verification-skill
Generate a project-local verification skill that drives your app the way a user does — any language, framework, or platform. Use for /create-verification-skill, "make a control skill for this repo", or when a project has no scripted way to prove UI/CLI/service behavior.
tdd
Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
maintain-verification-skill
Periodic pass that keeps a project's verification skill and feature map honest: parallel source readers per feature, one live session driving every feature, at most one PR of proven corrections. Use for /maintain-verification-skill or "audit the verify skill".
verdict
The Reviewer's Verdict on a PR: re-run the repo's verification skill at the PR's head, hold the PR's Evidence against it, and record pass or fail with nico-agent.
research
Investigate a question against high-trust primary sources and capture the findings as a Markdown file in the repo. Use when the user wants a topic researched, docs or API facts gathered, or reading legwork delegated to a background agent.