home / skills / thebushidocollective / han / solid-principles
This skill helps you apply SOLID design principles to TypeScript modules and components, improving maintainability and flexibility across codebases.
npx playbooks add skill thebushidocollective/han --skill solid-principlesReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
name: solid-principles
user-invocable: false
description: Use during implementation when designing modules, functions, and components requiring SOLID principles for maintainable, flexible architecture.
allowed-tools:
- Read
- Edit
- Grep
- Glob
---
# SOLID Principles
Apply SOLID design principles for maintainable, flexible code architecture.
## The Five Principles
### 1. Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)
### A module should have one, and only one, reason to change
### Elixir Pattern
```elixir
# BAD - Multiple responsibilities
defmodule UserManager do
def create_user(attrs) do
# Creates user
# Sends welcome email
# Logs to analytics
# Updates cache
end
end
# GOOD - Single responsibility
defmodule User do
def create(attrs), do: Repo.insert(changeset(attrs))
end
defmodule UserNotifier do
def send_welcome_email(user), do: # email logic
end
defmodule UserAnalytics do
def track_signup(user), do: # analytics logic
end
```
### TypeScript Pattern
```typescript
// BAD - Multiple responsibilities
class UserComponent {
render() { /* UI */ }
fetchData() { /* API */ }
formatDate() { /* Formatting */ }
validateInput() { /* Validation */ }
}
// GOOD - Single responsibility
function UserProfile({ user }: Props) {
return <View>{/* UI only */}</View>;
}
function useUserData(id: string) {
// Data fetching only
}
function formatUserDate(date: Date): string {
// Formatting only
}
```
**Ask yourself:** "What is the ONE thing this module does?"
### 2. Open/Closed Principle (OCP)
**Software entities should be open for extension, closed for modification.**
### Elixir Pattern (Behaviours)
```elixir
# Define interface
defmodule PaymentProvider do
@callback process_payment(amount :: Money.t(), token :: String.t()) ::
{:ok, transaction :: map()} | {:error, reason :: String.t()}
end
# Implementations extend without modifying
defmodule StripeProvider do
@behaviour PaymentProvider
def process_payment(amount, token), do: # Stripe logic
end
defmodule PayPalProvider do
@behaviour PaymentProvider
def process_payment(amount, token), do: # PayPal logic
end
# Usage - add new providers without changing this code
def charge(provider_module, amount, token) do
provider_module.process_payment(amount, token)
end
```
### TypeScript Pattern (Composition)
```typescript
// BAD - Requires modification for new types
function renderItem(item: Item) {
if (item.type === 'gig') {
return <TaskCard />;
} else if (item.type === 'shift') {
return <WorkPeriodCard />;
}
// Have to modify this function for new types
}
// GOOD - Extension through props
interface CardRenderer {
(item: Item): ReactElement;
}
const renderers: Record<string, CardRenderer> = {
gig: (item) => <TaskCard gig={item} />,
shift: (item) => <WorkPeriodCard shift={item} />,
// Add new types here without modifying renderItem
};
function renderItem(item: Item) {
const renderer = renderers[item.type];
return renderer ? renderer(item) : <DefaultCard item={item} />;
}
```
**Ask yourself:** "Can I add new functionality without changing existing code?"
### 3. Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP)
### Subtypes must be substitutable for their base types
### Elixir Pattern (LSP)
```elixir
# BAD - Violates LSP (raises when base type would return)
defmodule PaymentCalculator do
def calculate_total(items) when length(items) > 0 do
Enum.sum(items)
end
# Missing clause - raises on empty list
end
# GOOD - Honors contract
defmodule PaymentCalculator do
def calculate_total(items) when is_list(items) do
Enum.sum(items) # Returns 0 for empty list
end
end
```
### TypeScript Pattern (LSP)
```typescript
// BAD - Violates LSP
class Bird {
fly(): void { /* flies */ }
}
class Penguin extends Bird {
fly(): void {
throw new Error('Penguins cannot fly'); // Breaks contract
}
}
// GOOD - Correct abstraction
interface Bird {
move(): void;
}
class FlyingBird implements Bird {
move(): void { this.fly(); }
private fly(): void { /* flies */ }
}
class SwimmingBird implements Bird {
move(): void { this.swim(); }
private swim(): void { /* swims */ }
}
```
**Ask yourself:** "Can I replace this with its parent/interface without
breaking behavior?"
### 4. Interface Segregation Principle (ISP)
**Clients should not be forced to depend on interfaces they don't use.**
### Elixir Pattern (ISP)
```elixir
# BAD - Fat interface
defmodule User do
@callback work() :: :ok
@callback take_break() :: :ok
@callback eat_lunch() :: :ok
@callback clock_in() :: :ok
@callback clock_out() :: :ok
# Not all users need all these
end
# GOOD - Segregated interfaces
defmodule Workable do
@callback work() :: :ok
end
defmodule Breakable do
@callback take_break() :: :ok
end
defmodule TimeTrackable do
@callback clock_in() :: :ok
@callback clock_out() :: :ok
end
# Implement only what you need
defmodule ContractUser do
@behaviour Workable
def work(), do: :ok
# No time tracking needed
end
```
### TypeScript Pattern (ISP)
```typescript
// BAD - Fat interface
interface User {
work(): void;
takeBreak(): void;
clockIn(): void;
clockOut(): void;
receiveBenefits(): void;
// Not all users need all methods
}
// GOOD - Segregated interfaces
interface Workable {
work(): void;
}
interface TimeTrackable {
clockIn(): void;
clockOut(): void;
}
interface BenefitsEligible {
receiveBenefits(): void;
}
// Compose only what you need
type FullTimeUser = Workable & TimeTrackable & BenefitsEligible;
type ContractUser = Workable & TimeTrackable;
type TaskUser = Workable;
```
**Ask yourself:** "Does this interface force implementations to define unused methods?"
### 5. Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)
### Depend on abstractions, not concretions
### Elixir Pattern (DIP)
```elixir
# BAD - Direct dependency on implementation
defmodule UserService do
def create_user(attrs) do
PostgresRepo.insert(attrs) # Tightly coupled
end
end
# GOOD - Depend on abstraction
defmodule UserService do
def create_user(attrs, repo \\ YourApp.Repo) do
repo.insert(attrs) # Can inject any Repo implementation
end
end
# Even better - use behaviour
defmodule UserService do
@callback create_user(attrs :: map()) :: {:ok, User.t()} | {:error, term()}
end
defmodule PostgresUserService do
@behaviour UserService
def create_user(attrs), do: Repo.insert(User.changeset(attrs))
end
# Application config determines implementation
config :yourapp, :user_service, PostgresUserService
```
### TypeScript Pattern (DIP)
```typescript
// BAD - Direct dependency
class UserManager {
private api = new StripeAPI(); // Tightly coupled
async processPayment(amount: number) {
return this.api.charge(amount);
}
}
// GOOD - Depend on abstraction
interface PaymentAPI {
charge(amount: number): Promise<Transaction>;
}
class UserManager {
constructor(private paymentAPI: PaymentAPI) {} // Injected
async processPayment(amount: number) {
return this.paymentAPI.charge(amount);
}
}
// Usage
const stripeAPI: PaymentAPI = new StripeAPI();
const manager = new UserManager(stripeAPI);
```
**Ask yourself:** "Can I swap implementations without changing dependent code?"
## Application Checklist
### Before writing new code
- [ ] Identify the single responsibility
- [ ] Design for extension points (behaviours, interfaces)
- [ ] Define abstractions before implementations
- [ ] Keep interfaces minimal and focused
### During implementation
- [ ] Each module has ONE reason to change (SRP)
- [ ] New features extend, don't modify (OCP)
- [ ] Implementations honor contracts (LSP)
- [ ] Interfaces are minimal (ISP)
- [ ] Dependencies are injected/configurable (DIP)
### During code review
- [ ] Are responsibilities clearly separated?
- [ ] Can we add features without modifying existing code?
- [ ] Do all implementations fulfill their contracts?
- [ ] Are interfaces focused and minimal?
- [ ] Are dependencies abstracted?
## Common Violations in Codebase
### SRP Violation
- GraphQL resolvers that also contain business logic (use command handlers)
- Components that fetch data AND render (use hooks + presentation components)
### OCP Violation
- Long if/else or case statements for types (use behaviours/polymorphism)
- Hardcoded provider logic (use dependency injection)
### LSP Violation
- Raising exceptions in implementations when base would return nil/error tuple
- Changing return types between implementations
### ISP Violation
- Fat GraphQL types requiring all fields (use fragments)
- Monolithic component props (split into focused interfaces)
### DIP Violation
- Direct calls to external services (wrap in behaviours)
- Hardcoded Repo calls (inject repository)
## Integration with Existing Skills
### Works with
- `boy-scout-rule`: Apply SOLID when improving code
- `test-driven-development`: Write tests for each responsibility
- `elixir-code-quality-enforcer`: Credo enforces some SOLID principles
- `typescript-code-quality-enforcer`: TypeScript interfaces support ISP/DIP
## Remember
**SOLID is about managing dependencies and responsibilities, not about
creating more code.**
Good design emerges from applying these principles pragmatically, not
dogmatically.
This skill guides developers to apply SOLID design principles while implementing modules, functions, and components to achieve maintainable, testable, and extensible TypeScript (and Elixir) code. It focuses on practical patterns, common violations, and an actionable checklist to follow before and during coding. Use it to reduce coupling, clarify responsibilities, and design stable extension points.
The skill inspects design decisions and suggests concrete refactors aligned with SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, and DIP. It provides patterns and examples for composition, behaviours/interfaces, dependency injection, and contract-aware implementations so you can change architecture with minimal risk. It also supplies a short checklist you can use in pull requests and code reviews.
How do I decide which single responsibility a module should have?
Pick the primary reason it will change: UI rendering, data access, business rules, formatting, or side effects. If a module touches more than one, split it along those concerns.
Won’t applying SOLID add more files and indirection?
Yes, often more small files and interfaces appear, but that improves clarity, makes testing easier, and reduces costly changes later. Apply pragmatically where benefit outweighs complexity.