karpathy-coder
Use when writing, reviewing, or committing code to enforce Karpathy's 4 coding principles — surface assumptions before coding, keep it simple, make surgical changes, define verifiable goals. Triggers on "review my diff", "check complexity", "am I overcomplicating this", "karpathy check", "before I commit", or any code quality concern where the LLM might be overcoding.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-05-06
- Stars
- ★ 14
- Forks
- 1
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- karpathy-coder
- tags
- [ "code-quality", "discipline", "karpathy", "simplicity", "surgical-changes", "anti-patterns", "review" ]
- author
- claude-code-skills
- context
- fork
- license
- MIT
- version
- 2.3.0
- description
- Use when writing, reviewing, or committing code to enforce Karpathy's 4 coding principles — surface assumptions before coding, keep it simple, make surgical changes, define verifiable goals. Triggers on "review my diff", "check complexity", "am I overcomplicating this", "karpathy check", "before I commit", or any code quality concern where the LLM might be overcoding.
- compatible_tools
- [ "claude-code", "codex-cli", "cursor", "antigravity", "opencode", "gemini-cli" ]
02 资源文件 11
- 参考文档expected_outputs/assumption_linter.json933 B
- 参考文档expected_outputs/complexity_checker.json584 B
- 参考文档expected_outputs/diff_surgeon.json158 B
- 参考文档expected_outputs/goal_verifier.json853 B
- 参考文档references/anti-patterns.md4.8 KB
- 参考文档references/enforcement-patterns.md3.7 KB
- 参考文档references/karpathy-principles.md3.7 KB
- 脚本scripts/assumption_linter.py6.7 KB
- 脚本scripts/complexity_checker.py10.7 KB
- 脚本scripts/diff_surgeon.py7.7 KB
- 脚本scripts/goal_verifier.py6.5 KB
03 SKILL.md 正文
Karpathy Coder — Active Coding Discipline
Derived from Andrej Karpathy's observations on LLM coding pitfalls. This is not just guidelines — it ships Python tools that detect violations, a review agent, a slash command, and a pre-commit hook.
"The models make wrong assumptions on your behalf and just run along with them without checking. They don't manage their confusion, don't seek clarifications, don't surface inconsistencies, don't present tradeoffs, don't push back when they should."
"They really like to overcomplicate code and APIs, bloat abstractions, don't clean up dead code... implement a bloated construction over 1000 lines when 100 would do."
"LLMs are exceptionally good at looping until they meet specific goals... Don't tell it what to do, give it success criteria and watch it go."
— Andrej Karpathy
The four principles
1. Think Before Coding
Don't assume. Don't hide confusion. Surface tradeoffs.
- State 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.
The test: 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.
- 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.
- 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.
| Instead of... | Transform to... |
|---|---|
| "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]
Slash command
/karpathy-check — Run the full 4-principle review on your staged changes.
Python tools (scripts/)
All tools are stdlib-only. Run with --help.
| Script | What it detects |
|---|---|
complexity_checker.py |
Over-engineering: too many classes, deep nesting, high cyclomatic complexity, unused params, premature abstractions |
diff_surgeon.py |
Diff noise: lines that don't trace to the stated goal — comment changes, style drift, drive-by refactors |
assumption_linter.py |
Hidden assumptions in a plan: unasked features, missing clarifications, silent interpretation choices |
goal_verifier.py |
Weak success criteria: vague plans without verifiable checks, missing test assertions |
Sub-agent
karpathy-reviewer — Runs all 4 principles against a diff. Dispatched by /karpathy-check or manually before committing.
Pre-commit hook
hooks/karpathy-gate.sh — runs complexity_checker.py and diff_surgeon.py on staged files. Warns (non-blocking) when violations are found. Wire it via .claude/settings.json or Husky.
References
references/karpathy-principles.md— the source quotes, deeper context, when to relax each principlereferences/anti-patterns.md— 10+ before/after examples across Python, TypeScript, and shellreferences/enforcement-patterns.md— how to wire hooks, CI integration, team adoption
When to relax
These principles bias toward caution over speed. For trivial tasks (typo fixes, obvious one-liners), use judgment. The principles matter most on:
- Non-trivial implementations (>20 lines changed)
- Code you don't fully understand
- Multi-step tasks with unclear requirements
- Anything that will be reviewed by humans
Cross-tool compatibility
Installs via plugin for Claude Code. For other tools, copy the principles into your schema file:
| Tool | Schema file |
|---|---|
| Claude Code | CLAUDE.md (auto-loaded by plugin) |
| Codex CLI | AGENTS.md |
| Cursor | AGENTS.md or .cursorrules |
| Antigravity / OpenCode / Gemini CLI | AGENTS.md |
Related skills (chains via context: fork)
self-eval— honest quality scoring after completing workcode-reviewer— broader code review; karpathy-coder focuses on the 4 LLM-specific pitfallsllm-wiki— compound knowledge; karpathy-coder ensures you don't overcomplicate while building it
04 同仓库更多 Skills
write-contracts
Generates secure Aptos Move V2 smart contracts with Object model, Digital Asset integration, security patterns, and storage type guidance. Includes comprehensive storage decision framework for optimal data structure selection. Triggers on: 'write contract', 'create NFT collection', 'build marketplace', 'implement minting', 'generate Move module', 'create token contract', 'build DAO', 'implement staking'. Ask storage questions when: 'store', 'track', 'registry', 'mapping', 'list', 'collection'.
web-search
通用网络搜索技能,支持多引擎搜索(百度、必应、DuckDuckGo),无需API密钥即可获取实时信息
solo-build
Execute implementation plan tasks with TDD workflow, auto-commit, and phase gates. Use when user says "build it", "start building", "execute plan", "implement tasks", "ship it", or references a track ID. Do NOT use for planning (use /plan) or scaffolding (use /scaffold).
react-email
Use when building HTML email templates with React components, adding a visual email editor to an application using the React Email visual editor, rendering emails to HTML, or sending emails with Resend. Covers welcome emails, password resets, notifications, order confirmations, newsletters, transactional emails, and the embeddable email editor component.
APITester Agent-Driven API Testing
Test API endpoints and document responses. Define tests in plain English, run them, get formatted results. Agent-driven Postman alternative.
hubspot-implementation-plan
Generate a phased implementation plan from a HubSpot audit report. Creates prioritized, sequenced cleanup processes with effort estimates, dependencies, and automation feasibility. Use after running /hubspot-audit.