M15 anti pattern
Skill ulpi-io/plugin-marketplace/plugins/zhanghandong/skills/m15-anti-pattern
A curated collection of 7,800+ agent skills for Claude Desktop, sourced from skills.sh
npx -y skills add ulpi-io/plugin-marketplace --skill m15-anti-patternAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when reviewing code for anti-patterns. Keywords: anti-pattern, common mistake, pitfall, code smell, bad practice, code review, is this an anti-pattern, better way to do this, common mistake to avoid, why is this bad, idiomatic way, beginner mistake, fighting borrow checker, clone everywhere, unwrap in production, should I refactor, 反模式, 常见错误, 代码异味, 最佳实践, 地道写法
SKILL.md
4.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Anti-Patterns
Layer 2: Design Choices
Core Question
Is this pattern hiding a design problem?
When reviewing code:
- Is this solving the symptom or the cause?
- Is there a more idiomatic approach?
- Does this fight or flow with Rust?
Anti-Pattern → Better Pattern
| Anti-Pattern | Why Bad | Better |
|---|---|---|
.clone() everywhere | Hides ownership issues | Proper references or ownership |
.unwrap() in production | Runtime panics | ?, expect, or handling |
Rc when single owner | Unnecessary overhead | Simple ownership |
unsafe for convenience | UB risk | Find safe pattern |
OOP via Deref | Misleading API | Composition, traits |
| Giant match arms | Unmaintainable | Extract to methods |
String everywhere | Allocation waste | &str, Cow<str> |
Ignoring #[must_use] | Lost errors | Handle or let _ = |
Thinking Prompt
When seeing suspicious code:
-
Is this symptom or cause?
- Clone to avoid borrow? → Ownership design issue
- Unwrap "because it won't fail"? → Unhandled case
-
What would idiomatic code look like?
- References instead of clones
- Iterators instead of index loops
- Pattern matching instead of flags
-
Does this fight Rust?
- Fighting borrow checker → restructure
- Excessive unsafe → find safe pattern
Trace Up ↑
To design understanding:
"Why does my code have so many clones?"
↑ Ask: Is the ownership model correct?
↑ Check: m09-domain (data flow design)
↑ Check: m01-ownership (reference patterns)
| Anti-Pattern | Trace To | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Clone everywhere | m01-ownership | Who should own this data? |
| Unwrap everywhere | m06-error-handling | What's the error strategy? |
| Rc everywhere | m09-domain | Is ownership clear? |
| Fighting lifetimes | m09-domain | Should data structure change? |
Trace Down ↓
To implementation (Layer 1):
"Replace clone with proper ownership"
↓ m01-ownership: Reference patterns
↓ m02-resource: Smart pointer if needed
"Replace unwrap with proper handling"
↓ m06-error-handling: ? operator
↓ m06-error-handling: expect with message
Top 5 Beginner Mistakes
| Rank | Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clone to escape borrow checker | Use references |
| 2 | Unwrap in production | Propagate with ? |
| 3 | String for everything | Use &str |
| 4 | Index loops | Use iterators |
| 5 | Fighting lifetimes | Restructure to own data |
Code Smell → Refactoring
| Smell | Indicates | Refactoring |
|---|---|---|
Many .clone() | Ownership unclear | Clarify data flow |
Many .unwrap() | Error handling missing | Add proper handling |
Many pub fields | Encapsulation broken | Private + accessors |
| Deep nesting | Complex logic | Extract methods |
| Long functions | Multiple responsibilities | Split |
| Giant enums | Missing abstraction | Trait + types |
Common Error Patterns
| Error | Anti-Pattern Cause | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| E0382 use after move | Cloning vs ownership | Proper references |
| Panic in production | Unwrap everywhere | ?, matching |
| Slow performance | String for all text | &str, Cow |
| Borrow checker fights | Wrong structure | Restructure |
| Memory bloat | Rc/Arc everywhere | Simple ownership |
Deprecated → Better
| Deprecated | Better |
|---|---|
| Index-based loops | .iter(), .enumerate() |
collect::<Vec<_>>() then iterate | Chain iterators |
| Manual unsafe cell | Cell, RefCell |
mem::transmute for casts | as or TryFrom |
| Custom linked list | Vec, VecDeque |
lazy_static! | std::sync::OnceLock |
Quick Review Checklist
- No
.clone()without justification - No
.unwrap()in library code - No
pubfields with invariants - No index loops when iterator works
- No
Stringwhere&strsuffices - No ignored
#[must_use]warnings - No
unsafewithout SAFETY comment - No giant functions (>50 lines)
Related Skills
| When | See |
|---|---|
| Ownership patterns | m01-ownership |
| Error handling | m06-error-handling |
| Mental models | m14-mental-model |
| Performance | m10-performance |
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most refactoring skills give
Counted across 521 of the 525 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06
- run tests after each changein 59 of 521, across 56 files
- write tests before refactoringin 27 of 521, across 24 files
- preserve external behaviorin 26 of 521, across 22 files
- remove dead codein 25 of 521, across 24 files
- make small incremental changesin 20 of 521, across 17 files
- break the implementation into tiny commitsin 18 of 521, across 5 files
- ask the user about alternative optionsin 17 of 521, across 4 files
- create a GitHub issue with the planin 17 of 521, across 4 files
- explore the repository to verify assertionsin 17 of 521, across 4 files
- interview the user about the refactorin 16 of 521, across 3 files
- check the codebase for test coveragein 16 of 521, across 3 files
- refactor one thing at a timein 16 of 521, across 12 files
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once.