← Browse

@waldirborbajr/kvstok

A

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.

skillclaude

Install

agr install @waldirborbajr/kvstok --target claude

Writes 19 files into .claude/skills/, pinned to git-537e0e10.

  • .claude/skills/kvstok/.gitignore
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/.golangci.yaml
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/.goreleaser.yaml
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/CONTRIBUTING.md
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/CONTRIBUTORS.md
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/DCO
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/Dockerfile
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/Justfile
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/LICENSE
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/README.md
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/SECURITY.md
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/SKILL.md
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/TODO.md
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/VERSION
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/go.mod
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/go.sum
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/lint_analysis.ipynb
  • .claude/skills/kvstok/main.go

Document


name: kvstok description: 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. license: 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.

Trustgrade A

  • passBody integrity

    Whether the stored document is plausibly the kind of file the artifact declares, rather than something fetched by mistake.

  • passType matchnot applicable to this artifact type

    Whether the artifact is really the kind of thing its metadata claims it is.

  • passFreshness

    How long since the source repository was last pushed to.

  • passPrompt injection

    Scans the artifact's own text for instructions aimed at your agent rather than at you.

  • passLicense

    Whether the source repository declares an SPDX license permissive enough to redistribute.

How the grade is calculated

Each check contributes 0 points when it passes, 1 when it warns, and 2 when it fails. The total maps to a letter:

  • Aevery check passed
  • Bone warning
  • Ctwo warnings
  • Dprompt injection or body integrity failed, or three warnings
  • Fone of those failed, and something else is wrong

These are automated hygiene checks, not a security audit, and not a dependency or vulnerability scan. A grade of A means nothing was flagged — not that the artifact is safe.

Versions

  • git-537e0e102c572026-07-31