C

codebase-design

by @mattpocockv
4.9(120)

This skill provides a shared vocabulary and principles for designing deep modules, optimizing code interfaces and implementations. It helps developers identify deepening opportunities, define module boundaries, enhance code testability and AI navigability, thereby building software systems with greater leverage, locality, and maintainability.

software-architecturedesign-patternscode-qualitytestabilitymodule-designGitHub
Installation
npx skills add https://github.com/mattpocock/skills --skill codebase-design
compare_arrows

Before / After Comparison

1 组
Before

Before this skill, developers often struggled with designing software modules due to a lack of unified vocabulary and principles. This led to complex module interfaces, excessive exposure of internal logic, and difficulties in testing and maintenance. Team members had inconsistent understandings of terms like "module" and "interface," resulting in inefficient communication and new issues during refactoring.

After

This skill introduces precise concepts like "deep modules," "interfaces," and "seams," enabling teams to discuss design using a unified language. It guides developers in building modules with small interfaces and large implementations, significantly improving code testability, maintainability, and reusability, while reducing communication overhead and refactoring risks.

SKILL.md

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:

  1. Accept dependencies, don't create them.

    // Testable
    function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {}
    
    // Hard to test
    function processOrder(order) {
      const gateway = new StripeGateway();
    }
    
  2. Return results, don't produce side effects.

    // Testable
    function calculateDiscount(cart): Discount {}
    
    // Hard to test
    function applyDiscount(cart): void {
      cart.total -= discount;
    }
    
  3. 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 interface keyword 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.

User Reviews (0)

Write a Review

Effect
Usability
Docs
Compatibility

No reviews yet

Statistics

Installs842.8K
Rating4.9 / 5.0
Version
Updated2026年10月23日
Comparisons1

User Rating

4.9(120)
5
37%
4
43%
3
13%
2
5%
1
2%

Rate this Skill

0.0

Compatible Platforms

🤖claude-code

Timeline

Created2026年6月19日
Last Updated2026年10月23日
🎁 Agent Knowledge Cards
Survey