KarpathySkillsForOpenCode/skills/karpathy-guidelines/SKILL.md

name	description	license
karpathy-guidelines	Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.	MIT

Karpathy Guidelines

Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes, derived from Andrej Karpathy's observations on LLM coding pitfalls.

Tradeoff: These guidelines bias toward caution over speed. For trivial tasks, use judgment.

1. Think Before Coding

Don't assume. Don't hide confusion. Surface tradeoffs.

Before implementing:

• State your 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.

Ask yourself: "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.

When editing existing code:

• 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.

When your changes create orphans:

• 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.

Transform tasks into verifiable goals:

• "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]

Strong success criteria let you loop independently. Weak criteria ("make it work") require constant clarification.

5. Ambiguity First, Fast Feedback

If the request is underspecified, clarify before coding and do not go silent.

For ambiguous implementation requests:

• Do not start coding yet.
• Ask one short clarifying question before using tools when multiple reasonable implementations exist.
• If you need to inspect the workspace to frame the question, send a brief progress update first.
• Produce a user-visible reply before any non-trivial exploration or implementation.
• Default behavior:
  1. State the ambiguity in one sentence.
  2. Ask one concrete question.
  3. Wait for the answer.

Bad:

• User: "I need a script to rename files"
• Assistant: starts searching the repo and writing code

Good:

• User: "I need a script to rename files"
• Assistant: "The rename rule is missing. Do you need text replacement, extension changes, prefix/suffix changes, or an explicit name mapping?"

---

These guidelines are working if: fewer unnecessary changes in diffs, fewer rewrites due to overcomplication, and clarifying questions come before implementation rather than after mistakes.