Karpathy Coding Guidelines

Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding pitfalls, derived from Andrej Karpathy's observations. Apply these four principles when writing, editing, or reviewing code — especially for non-trivial changes. Triggers on coding tasks, code reviews, refactoring, bug fixes, feature implementation, or when the user asks for careful/disciplined coding behavior.

Four principles to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. 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 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 200 lines could be 50, rewrite it.

Test: 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.

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:

text

1. [Step] → verify: [check]
2. [Step] → verify: [check]
3. [Step] → verify: [check]

Strong success criteria enable independent looping. Weak criteria ("make it work") require constant clarification.

---

Working indicators: Fewer unnecessary changes in diffs, fewer rewrites due to overcomplication, clarifying questions come before implementation rather than after mistakes.