Karpathy Principles

Karpathy Coding Principles

Derived from Andrej Karpathy's observations on LLM coding pitfalls.

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

When to Apply

• Classification: quick-win, feature, architecture-change, hotfix
• Phase: /plan (assumption surfacing), /implement (simplicity + surgical), /review (scope audit)
• Trigger: All non-trivial coding tasks — this is a behavioral baseline, not a domain skill

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.

Self-check: "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.

Checklist

During /plan:

• Assumptions stated explicitly before proposing solution
• Ambiguities surfaced — multiple interpretations presented if they exist
• Simplest viable approach chosen (justify if not the simplest)

During /implement:

• No features beyond what was asked
• No abstractions for single-use code
• Every changed line traces to the user's request
• Pre-existing code left alone unless directly required
• Success criteria defined before implementation begins

During /review:

• Diff contains only requested changes — no drive-by refactoring
• Code is not overcomplicated — could a simpler version work?
• Orphaned imports/variables from THIS change are cleaned up
• Pre-existing dead code mentioned but not deleted