agentsclimarketplace

Codebase design

Skill rengwu/wayfinder-maps/skills/.optional/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.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add rengwu/wayfinder-maps --skill codebase-design

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

SKILL.md

6.5 KB, ~1.3k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

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 entry points?
  • 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 (pseudocode — adapt to the project's language):

  1. Accept dependencies, don't create them.

    // Testable — the dependency is passed in
    process_order(order, payment_gateway)
    
    // Hard to test — the dependency is constructed inside
    process_order(order):
        gateway = create StripeGateway()
        ...
    
  2. Return results, don't produce side effects.

    // Testable — returns a value
    calculate_discount(cart) -> Discount
    
    // Hard to test — mutates in place, returns nothing
    apply_discount(cart):
        cart.total -= discount
    
  3. Small surface area. Fewer entry points = 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 a language's interface/trait/typeclass/protocol construct, or a module's public functions: 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: design the interface several radically different ways (in parallel subagents where the environment supports them), then compare on depth, locality, and seam placement.

What ships with it: 2 files

5.5 KB alongside SKILL.md

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most design frontend skills give in ~1.3k tokens

Counted across 1,179 of the 2,086 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-09-06

  • Commit to a bold aesthetic directionin 31 of 1179, across 24 files
  • Prefer component composition over inheritancein 28 of 1179, across 14 files
  • Animate only transform and opacity propertiesin 27 of 1179, across 22 files
  • Memoize expensive computations with useMemoin 26 of 1179, across 13 files
  • Use semantic HTML elementsin 24 of 1179, across 23 files
  • Virtualize long lists for performancein 21 of 1179, across 10 files
  • Use CSS variables for design tokensin 20 of 1179, across 14 files
  • Implement loading, empty, and error statesin 20 of 1179
  • Lazy load heavy components with Suspensein 19 of 1179, across 8 files
  • Respect prefers-reduced-motion media queriesin 18 of 1179, across 10 files
  • Prioritize CSS-only animations for HTMLin 18 of 1179, across 16 files
  • Use compound components for related UI elementsin 18 of 1179, across 7 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • reduce the number of entry points

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.