docs: prevent over-engineering at plan and implementation time - #48
Conversation
The YAGNI standard and the sixth review dimension both detect speculative machinery after it has been designed and written. Nothing stopped it being produced. Adds a plan-scope rule to section 1 (name the caller for every parameter, option and abstraction the plan introduces; cut the item if that caller is hypothetical) and a sentence to the section 1c implementer step (build the task, not a generalised version of it; re-plan rather than improvise machinery the plan didn't call for). Plan time is the cheapest point to catch this: deleting a line from a plan costs nothing, while pruning the same thing later costs an implementation, a review round, a refactor and a re-verification.
|
Warning Review limit reachedYou’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. Next review available in: 10 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Comment |
1 participant
What
Two additions to
CLAUDE.md, closing the loop opened by #44 and #46:Why
#44 gave the YAGNI standard, #46 made over-engineering the sixth review dimension. Both are detection: they catch speculative machinery after it has been designed and written. Nothing stopped it being produced.
A plan is where speculative machinery gets legitimised. Once "add a
--strategyflag" is a numbered task in an approved plan, it stops reading as a guess and starts reading as a requirement — the implementer builds it, the reviewer sees it matches the plan, and it ships. The review dimension then has to argue against an approved decision rather than a stray idea.It's also the cheapest point to catch it. Deleting a line from a plan costs nothing; pruning the same thing later costs an implementation, a review round, a refactor, and the behaviour-preservation proof #46 now requires.
Evidence
In the batch that prompted #44, a Puppet profile shipped at 343 lines and was later pruned to 100 with no behaviour change. What came out: a parameter no caller overrode, a parameter whose one caller always took the default, ~15 lines of idempotence machinery guarding a state the calling system cannot reach, and validation heavier than the risk.
None of that was a coding mistake. Each item was correct, reasoned and tested. They were planning decisions made before a line was written, and every later gate accepted them precisely because they matched the plan.
Scope
2 changed lines in one file. The rules already exist in
coding-standards.md; this just applies them at the two phases that were producing the problem.Closes #47