TypeScript (Style Guide)¶
Overview¶
Produce TypeScript that is easy to read, easy to change, and safe at runtime—by treating the codebase as a system: explicit boundaries, explicit dependencies, explicit errors, and explicit lifetimes.
Most of the principles here translate to other languages; the TypeScript-specific parts are mainly about how to enforce them with TS tooling and types.
Default objectives:
- Consistency: prefer automated formatting and linting (Prettier + ESLint) to eliminate style drift.
- Readability: reduce cognitive load with clear naming, shallow control flow, and explicit types.
- Maintainability: keep modules cohesive and dependencies/lifetimes explicit so change stays local.
A note on scope: these guidelines are optimized for systemic TypeScript (long‑lived apps/services/libraries where ownership, I/O boundaries, and runtime behavior matter). For short‑lived scripts, you can relax some constraints (e.g. more throw, fewer abstractions) as long as the blast radius stays small.
Definitions:
- Scriptic: short‑lived scripts/one‑offs; optimize for speed and simplicity;
throwis usually fine. - Systemic: long‑lived apps/services/libraries; optimize for explicit boundaries, typed failures, and explicit lifetimes.
Chooser¶
- Use typescript when: creating new TS modules, modeling domain types, applying the Throwless Pact (Result/Either), validating external inputs (Zod/io-ts), organizing imports, or preventing cyclic dependencies.
- Do NOT use typescript when: choosing which design pattern to apply (use
design); designing shared platform libraries (useplatform). - Relax for scriptic code: short-lived scripts don't need full boundary discipline or explicit lifetimes.
Inputs / Outputs¶
Inputs: TypeScript source files to create, review, or refactor. Outputs: Modified/created TypeScript source files following style guide principles. Applied inline during implementation; no downstream skill consumes output directly.
Workflow¶
- Decide “scriptic vs systemic” and set policies (error strategy, boundary validation, ownership/lifetimes).
- Separate pure logic from side effects (I/O, time, randomness, global state).
- Identify boundaries (HTTP/DB/fs/env) and treat their inputs as
unknown. - Model the domain with types (discriminated unions) and keep data as plain objects (serializable).
- Apply the Throwless Pact: make known failures explicit in types; reserve
throwfor unknown/unrecoverable; catch and convert at boundaries. - Keep dependencies explicit via parameters/factories; centralize wiring in a composition root.
- Keep the module graph acyclic; enforce a dependency direction; prefer
import typefor type-only imports. - Make lifetimes explicit (create/start/stop/dispose); don’t rely on GC or hidden ownership.
- For long‑running work (pollers, consumers, schedulers), model explicit “agents” with typed inputs/state and explicit shutdown.
- Test at seams (pure functions, decoders/validators, adapters).
- At I/O boundaries, make timeouts/retries/idempotency explicit (
resilience) and keep telemetry consistent (observability); if 2+ services need the same boundary primitive, extract it (seeplatform).
Minimum viable execution¶
When context or time is constrained, these are the load-bearing steps:
- Read existing code — understand the current error strategy, boundary patterns, and module structure before changing anything.
- Apply boundary discipline (steps 3, 5) — treat external inputs as
unknown, validate at edges, make known failures explicit in types. - Keep module graph acyclic (step 7) — enforce dependency direction; prefer
import typefor type-only. - Typecheck (step 10) — verify no type errors introduced.
Steps that can be cut under pressure: explicit lifetime modeling (step 8), agent patterns for long-running work (step 9), full composition root wiring (step 6).
Guidelines¶
For the full set of guidelines, see references/guidelines.md. Key highlights:
- Systemic constraints: types are erased at runtime,
throwis untyped, serialization is not bijective, no deterministic destructors, cyclic deps break systems. - Throwless Pact: known failures as typed
Result/ tagged unions; reservethrowfor unknown/unrecoverable; catch at boundaries. - Boundaries: treat external inputs as
unknown; validate/parse once at the edge; keep "wire" shapes separate from domain types. - Lifetimes: make resource ownership explicit (create/start/stop/dispose); prefer
AbortSignalfor cancellation. - Modules: prevent cyclic imports; use a composition root; one feature per file; avoid barrel exports across layers.
Clarifying Questions¶
- Is this scriptic (short-lived script) or systemic (long-lived app/service/library)?
- What runtime: Node.js, browser, or both?
- Is there an existing error strategy (throw vs Result/Either)?
- Are there existing lint/format configs (ESLint, Prettier) to follow?
- Does this module sit at an I/O boundary (HTTP, DB, filesystem)?
Guardrails¶
- Don't apply systemic rigor to scriptic code: short-lived scripts don't need Result types, composition roots, or explicit lifetimes.
- Don't scatter validation across layers: decode
unknownonce at boundaries, then trust typed values internally. - Don't use barrel exports (
index.ts) across layer boundaries: they hide cyclic dependencies and bloat bundles. - Don't leave resource ownership implicit: if you create a connection/handle, define who calls
close/dispose. - Don't use
anyas a shortcut: preferunknown+ narrowing at boundaries, or generics for reusable code.
Common failure modes¶
- Over-types — adds unnecessary generics, utility types, or type gymnastics where simple concrete types would be clearer and more maintainable.
- Adds type annotations or refactors to code that wasn't changed — the skill should apply to the code being worked on, not adjacent unchanged code.
- Wraps every error in Result/Either even for internal code — the Throwless Pact applies at boundaries; internal pure functions can use simpler patterns.
- Applies systemic rigor to scriptic code — short-lived scripts don't need composition roots, explicit lifetimes, or Result types.
References¶
- Glossary for common terms:
GLOSSARY.md - Specs/contracts as sources of truth:
spec - Boundary time budgets and idempotency:
resilience - Telemetry consistency:
observability - Shared “golden path” primitives:
platform
Review checklist¶
Use this list when reviewing/refactoring TypeScript:
- Names are precise; no mystery abbreviations or misleading types.
- Formatting/imports follow the formatter (Prettier/ESLint); import order is stable.
- Functions are small, single-purpose, and mostly pure; few parameters; no boolean flags.
- Control flow is readable: shallow indentation, no nested ternaries, and no “clever” one-liners.
- Discriminated unions are handled exhaustively; missing variants fail fast at compile time.
- No accidental
any;unknownis narrowed/decoded before use. - External input is validated/decoded at boundaries; no unsafe
ascasts from JSON/env/network input. - JSON/env/DB “wire” shapes are kept separate from domain types; round-trips don’t silently lose meaning.
- Expected failures are signified (tagged unions /
Result); no sentinel returns; internal code is effectively “throwless”. - Boundary code catches unknown throws and converts them to known error variants.
- Errors aren’t logged repeatedly across layers; logging happens at boundaries with enough context.
- Side effects are isolated; module dependencies are explicit and acyclic.
- No top-level side effects; composition root owns startup/shutdown.
- Resource ownership/cleanup is explicit; no “leaky” lifetimes; cancellation is threaded via
AbortSignal. - Long-running loops are explicit agents with shutdown/await paths.
- Tests cover pure logic and boundary adapters (decoders, repositories, clients).
Output Template¶
When asked to apply this guide, respond with:
- Start with the highest-leverage changes (usually around boundaries, error signifiers, and lifetimes/ownership).
- Concrete refactors (diffs or patch-sized snippets).
- Any trade-offs and clarifying questions (scriptic vs systemic scope, domain boundaries, lifetime/agent ownership, error policy).