oh-my-opencode 4.11.0 → 4.11.1

package/packages/shared-skills/skills/programming/references/code-smells.md

@@ -0,0 +1,390 @@
+# Code Smells — Full Reference
+
+When any of these smells is detected, **STOP and re-examine your design.** A code smell is not a syntax error — it is a signal that the current structure deserves a second look. The correct response is to assess whether `/refactor` is warranted, fix the smell, or document a SPECIFIC justification for carrying it. "It's fine" is not a justification.
+
+---
+
+## Smell 1 — File exceeds 250 pure LOC
+
+### Why 250
+
+At 250 pure LOC a file still fits in one screen on a 32-inch monitor with a 14pt font. A reviewer can hold the whole thing in working memory and spot a cross-cutting bug. At 500 LOC they cannot. At 1000 LOC they stop trying. The number is the cognitive ceiling of a single human reviewer who has not memorized the file.
+
+A file past this line is telling you:
+
+- The module is doing more than one thing.
+- Multiple cohesive units got merged "to save a file."
+- Re-exports, barrels, and orchestrators got fused into pure-logic units.
+- Every future reader pays a tax to find what they need.
+
+### Measuring pure LOC
+
+```bash
+# Quick (line-comment + blank exclusion):
+awk '!/^[[:space:]]*$/ && !/^[[:space:]]*(\/\/|#|--)/' <file> | wc -l
+
+# Authoritative (handles block comments correctly):
+cloc --by-file <file>   # the "code" column is the number
+```
+
+### Required behavior when detected
+
+**Creating a file that will exceed 250 pure LOC.** Split it before the first commit. Carve by responsibility, one cohesive unit per file. Use a barrel (`__init__.py`, `mod.rs`, `index.ts`) for re-exports ONLY — never for logic.
+
+**Editing a file that already exceeds 250 pure LOC and your edit adds lines.** Refactor the unit you are touching into its own file BEFORE adding the new lines. The split is part of THIS task, not a follow-up someone will never do.
+
+**Reading a file that exceeds 250 pure LOC while implementing a feature.** Surface the smell in your reply, propose a concrete split, and ask the user whether to split now or carry the smell.
+
+### Forbidden escapes
+
+- Counting comments and blank lines toward the budget. **Pure LOC means code lines.**
+- Splitting by token count (`foo_1.py`, `module_part_A.rs`, `service-2.ts`). Split by what each file DOES.
+- Catch-all dump files: `utils.py`, `helpers.ts`, `lib.rs` (as a logic dump), `common.py`, `shared.ts`.
+- "It's generated, so it's fine." Only true if the file lives in `dist/`, `target/`, `__generated__/`.
+- "It's a test file with many cases." Split by SUT or by behavior cluster.
+- "230 pure LOC, close enough." A 230-LOC file about to grow is already at the limit. Split now.
+
+### Acceptable exceptions (rare, require justification)
+
+A file may legitimately exceed 250 pure LOC if **and only if** it is:
+
+- A truly indivisible single-responsibility unit (e.g., a generated parser table, a state machine whose states share a single closure). Mark with `// allow: SIZE_OK — <reason>`.
+- A pure data table (translation strings, error code lookup, brand color palette).
+
+`// allow: SIZE_OK` without a justifying comment is itself slop.
+
+### Concrete split examples
+
+#### Python — BEFORE (`user_service.py`, 412 pure LOC)
+
+```python
+# user_service.py — DOES TOO MUCH
+class UserRepository: ...        # 90 LOC of SQLAlchemy
+class UserValidator: ...         # 60 LOC of Pydantic + business rules
+class PasswordHasher: ...        # 40 LOC of bcrypt wrapper
+class EmailSender: ...           # 50 LOC of httpx2 client
+class UserService: ...           # 130 LOC orchestrating the four above
+def _build_query(...): ...       # 25 LOC helper
+def _format_email(...): ...      # 17 LOC helper
+```
+
+#### Python — AFTER (split by responsibility)
+
+```
+src/myapp/users/
+├── __init__.py              # barrel: re-exports UserService only (5 LOC)
+├── repository.py            # UserRepository                 (~95 LOC)
+├── validator.py             # UserValidator                  (~65 LOC)
+├── password.py              # PasswordHasher                 (~45 LOC)
+├── notifier.py              # EmailSender (renamed — the role, not the verb)
+├── service.py               # UserService (orchestrator)     (~135 LOC)
+└── _queries.py              # _build_query (private)         (~30 LOC)
+```
+
+#### Rust — BEFORE (`auth.rs`, 380 pure LOC)
+
+```rust
+// auth.rs — DOES TOO MUCH
+pub struct Session { ... }                      // 40 LOC
+impl Session { ... }                            // 90 LOC of methods
+pub struct TokenIssuer { ... }                  // 30 LOC
+impl TokenIssuer { ... }                        // 70 LOC
+pub struct RateLimiter { ... }                  // 50 LOC
+impl RateLimiter { ... }                        // 70 LOC
+fn parse_authorization_header(...) { ... }      // 30 LOC
+```
+
+#### Rust — AFTER
+
+```
+src/auth/
+├── mod.rs              # re-exports Session, TokenIssuer, RateLimiter (8 LOC)
+├── session.rs          # Session + impl                         (~130 LOC)
+├── token.rs            # TokenIssuer + impl                     (~100 LOC)
+├── rate_limit.rs       # RateLimiter + impl                     (~120 LOC)
+└── header.rs           # parse_authorization_header             (~35 LOC)
+```
+
+#### TypeScript — BEFORE (`api/orders.ts`, 510 pure LOC)
+
+```typescript
+// api/orders.ts — DOES TOO MUCH
+export const OrderSchema = z.object({ ... })          // 30 LOC
+type Order = z.infer<typeof OrderSchema>
+export class OrderRepository { ... }                  // 110 LOC
+export class PricingEngine { ... }                    // 130 LOC
+export class TaxCalculator { ... }                    // 90 LOC
+export class OrderService { ... }                     // 150 LOC
+```
+
+#### TypeScript — AFTER
+
+```
+src/orders/
+├── index.ts                    # barrel (6 LOC)
+├── schema.ts                   # OrderSchema + Order type      (~35 LOC)
+├── repository.ts               # OrderRepository               (~115 LOC)
+├── pricing.ts                  # PricingEngine                 (~135 LOC)
+├── tax.ts                      # TaxCalculator                 (~95 LOC)
+└── service.ts                  # OrderService (orchestrator)   (~155 LOC)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Smell 2 — Function with more than 3 parameters
+
+### Why 3
+
+A function's parameters are its contract with every caller. More than 3 independent inputs overwhelm the caller's working memory and signal one of two design problems:
+
+1. **The function does too much.** It should be two functions.
+2. **Related parameters belong together.** They should be a typed struct/object — a domain concept, not a parameter bag.
+
+### Workaround detection — THESE COUNT AS THE SAME SMELL
+
+Disguising parameter count does not fix the design. The following patterns are the same smell wearing a different hat:
+
+**Dict/map smuggling:**
+```python
+# SMELL — hiding 6 args in a dict
+def create_order(params: dict[str, Any]) -> Order: ...
+```
+```typescript
+// SMELL — untyped options bag
+function createOrder(opts: Record<string, unknown>): Order { ... }
+```
+```go
+// SMELL — map instead of typed params
+func CreateOrder(params map[string]any) (*Order, error) { ... }
+```
+
+**Variadic/kwargs catch-all:**
+```python
+# SMELL — hiding real params behind kwargs
+def send_notification(recipient: str, **kwargs) -> None: ...
+```
+```typescript
+// SMELL — rest params to avoid naming args
+function sendNotification(recipient: string, ...args: unknown[]): void { ... }
+```
+
+**Config object that wraps positional args:**
+```python
+# SMELL — "options" object that exists only to bundle what would be positional args
+@dataclass
+class CreateUserOptions:
+    name: str
+    email: str
+    password: str
+    role: str
+    department: str
+    manager_id: int
+    # 6 fields, used by exactly one function, no defaults
+
+def create_user(opts: CreateUserOptions) -> User: ...
+```
+
+**When the options object is NOT a smell:** when it represents a genuine domain concept reused across multiple call sites with sensible defaults for most fields (e.g., `HttpClientConfig`, `DatabaseConnectionOptions`, `RetryPolicy`).
+
+### The fix
+
+Group related parameters into typed value objects with domain names:
+
+```python
+# CLEAN — grouped by domain concept
+@dataclass(frozen=True)
+class UserIdentity:
+    name: str
+    email: str
+
+@dataclass(frozen=True)
+class OrgPlacement:
+    role: str
+    department: str
+    manager_id: int
+
+def create_user(identity: UserIdentity, placement: OrgPlacement, password: str) -> User: ...
+# 3 params, each a meaningful concept
+```
+
+```typescript
+// CLEAN — typed grouping
+interface ShippingDetails {
+  readonly address: string;
+  readonly city: string;
+  readonly zip: string;
+  readonly country: string;
+}
+
+function createOrder(customer: CustomerId, items: readonly LineItem[], shipping: ShippingDetails): Order { ... }
+// 3 params, shipping is a reusable domain type
+```
+
+```go
+// CLEAN — struct with domain meaning
+type Placement struct {
+    Role       string
+    Department string
+    ManagerID  UserID
+}
+
+func CreateUser(identity UserIdentity, placement Placement, password string) (*User, error) { ... }
+```
+
+If 4+ truly independent inputs are required, justify it — the justification must name WHY these inputs cannot be grouped, not just "the function needs them all."
+
+---
+
+## Smell 3 — Redundant verification after a destructive action
+
+### Why this is slop
+
+The contract of a destructive operation (delete, remove, clear, drop) IS the verification. If the operation returns without error, the thing is gone. Re-querying to "confirm" is:
+
+1. **Dead code.** The check can never fail unless the operation itself is broken — in which case fix the operation, not the caller.
+2. **Misleading.** It teaches the next reader (human or AI) that the operation is unreliable.
+3. **Performance waste.** An unnecessary round-trip to the database, filesystem, or data structure.
+
+This pattern is the hallmark of AI-generated defensive bloat. LLMs produce it because they optimize for "looking thorough" over "being correct." **Recognize it. Delete it.**
+
+### Examples
+
+```python
+# SLOP — delete then verify deletion
+db.delete(user)
+db.commit()
+remaining = db.query(User).filter_by(id=user.id).first()
+assert remaining is None  # the ORM already guaranteed this
+
+# CLEAN
+db.delete(user)
+db.commit()
+```
+
+```typescript
+// SLOP — remove from array then check it's gone
+items = items.filter(i => i.id !== targetId);
+if (items.find(i => i.id === targetId)) {
+  throw new Error("removal failed");  // impossible by construction
+}
+
+// CLEAN
+items = items.filter(i => i.id !== targetId);
+```
+
+```go
+// SLOP — delete row then SELECT to confirm
+_, err := db.ExecContext(ctx, "DELETE FROM users WHERE id = $1", id)
+if err != nil { return err }
+row := db.QueryRowContext(ctx, "SELECT id FROM users WHERE id = $1", id)
+if err := row.Scan(&check); err != sql.ErrNoRows {
+    return fmt.Errorf("delete verification failed")
+}
+
+// CLEAN
+_, err := db.ExecContext(ctx, "DELETE FROM users WHERE id = $1", id)
+if err != nil { return err }
+```
+
+```rust
+// SLOP — remove from HashMap then check absence
+map.remove(&key);
+if map.contains_key(&key) {
+    panic!("removal failed");  // HashMap::remove is not broken
+}
+
+// CLEAN
+map.remove(&key);
+```
+
+### Broader pattern — same smell, different disguise
+
+Any of these are the same defect:
+
+- Calling a **setter** then immediately calling the **getter** to "confirm" the value changed.
+- **Writing** a file then **reading** it back to "verify" the write.
+- **Inserting** a row then **SELECT-ing** it to "confirm" the insert.
+- **Pushing** to an array then checking `.length` increased by 1.
+- **Assigning** a variable then asserting the variable equals the assigned value.
+
+**The contract of the operation IS the verification.** If you cannot trust the operation's return, the defect is in the operation — fix it there, not at the call site.
+
+---
+
+## Smell 4 — Negative-form names and conditions
+
+### Why positive form wins
+
+Every negation forces the reader to mentally invert. One negation is tolerable. Two (`if !isNotReady`) is a logic puzzle. Codebases that default to negative naming accumulate double and triple negations that nobody can review confidently.
+
+Positive form reads in the direction of intent: "is this ready?" rather than "is this not-not-ready?"
+
+### Naming
+
+| Negative (SMELL) | Positive (CLEAN) |
+|---|---|
+| `isNotValid` | `isValid` (invert branch) |
+| `isDisabled` | `isEnabled` |
+| `noErrors` | `isClean` / `errorsResolved` |
+| `notFound` | `found` (invert branch) |
+| `isNotEmpty` | `hasItems` / `isPopulated` |
+| `missingAuth` | `hasAuth` / `isAuthenticated` |
+| `cannotProceed` | `canProceed` (invert branch) |
+
+Name the **presence** of the quality you care about, not the absence of its opposite.
+
+### Conditions
+
+```python
+# SMELL — double negative
+if not is_invalid(token):
+    proceed()
+
+# CLEAN — single positive check
+if is_valid(token):
+    proceed()
+```
+
+```typescript
+// SMELL — negated boolean in branch
+if (!user.isNotVerified) {
+  grantAccess();
+}
+
+// CLEAN — positive name, direct check
+if (user.isVerified) {
+  grantAccess();
+}
+```
+
+```go
+// SMELL — inverted negative
+if !config.DisableLogging {
+    log.Info("starting")
+}
+
+// CLEAN — positive flag
+if config.LoggingEnabled {
+    log.Info("starting")
+}
+```
+
+```rust
+// SMELL — negated negative
+if !skip_validation {
+    validate(&input)?;
+}
+
+// CLEAN — positive gate
+if should_validate {
+    validate(&input)?;
+}
+```
+
+### When negation IS appropriate
+
+- **Early returns / guard clauses:** `if !authorized { return Err(...) }` — the negative form IS the intent (reject the bad case).
+- **Filtering out:** `items.filter(|x| !x.is_expired())` — the negation describes the keep/discard decision directly.
+- **Error state names:** `Error`, `Failed`, `Timeout` are negative concepts by nature — do not force them into positive wrappers like `isSuccessAbsent`.
+
+The rule is not "never use negation." The rule is: **when you have a choice between naming the presence and naming the absence, name the presence.** The branch logic follows from the name, not the other way around.