Domain-Focused Naming
Overview
Names documenting implementation or history create confusion. "NewUserAPI" doesn't tell what it does. "ZodValidator" exposes internals.
Core principle: Names tell what code does in the domain, not how it's built or what it replaced.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of naming.
When to Use
Use for:
- Variables, functions, classes, modules
- Refactoring existing code
- Code review feedback
- API design
Use ESPECIALLY when:
- Refactoring (tempted to add "New" or "Improved")
- Replacing implementations (tempted to add "Zod" or "MCP")
- Using design patterns (tempted to add "Factory" or "Manager")
- Documenting changes (tempted to add "Unified" or "Enhanced")
The Rules
NEVER Use Implementation Details
Names expose WHAT, not HOW.
<Bad> ```typescript class ZodValidator { } // Exposes Zod library class MCPToolWrapper { } // Exposes MCP protocol class JSONConfigParser { } // Exposes JSON format ``` </Bad> <Good> ```typescript class Validator { } // What it does class RemoteTool { } // What it represents class ConfigReader { } // What it does ``` </Good>NEVER Use Temporal Context
Code exists in present. Don't reference past or transitions.
<Bad> ```typescript class NewAPI { } // When does it stop being "new"? class LegacyHandler { } // Calls it legacy but it's running class ImprovedParser { } // Improved from what? class UnifiedService { } // What was unified? class EnhancedValidator { } // Enhanced how? ``` </Bad> <Good> ```typescript class API { } // What it is now class Handler { } // What it does now class Parser { } // What it does now class Service { } // What it is now class Validator { } // What it does now ``` </Good>NEVER Use Pattern Names (Unless They Add Clarity)
Patterns are implementation details. Most don't help understanding.
<Bad> ```typescript class ToolFactory { } // "Factory" adds nothing class ServiceBuilder { } // "Builder" adds nothing class ManagerSingleton { } // "Singleton" adds nothing ``` </Bad> <Good> ```typescript class Tool { } // Clear without pattern class Service { } // Clear without pattern class Registry { } // Clear without pattern// OK when pattern IS the purpose class EventEmitter { } // Observer pattern IS what it does class CommandQueue { } // Queue pattern IS what it does
</Good>
### Names Tell Domain Stories
Good names form sentences about business logic.
<Good>
```typescript
// Reads like domain language
user.authenticate()
order.calculateTotal()
payment.process()
// Not
user.executeAuthenticationStrategy()
order.runTotalCalculationAlgorithm()
payment.invokeProcessingWorkflow()
Quick Reference
| Bad Pattern | Why Bad | Good Alternative |
|---|---|---|
ZodValidator | Exposes implementation | Validator |
MCPToolWrapper | Exposes protocol | RemoteTool |
NewUserAPI | Temporal reference | UserAPI |
ImprovedParser | References history | Parser |
ToolFactory | Pattern name noise | Tool or createTool() |
AbstractToolInterface | Redundant qualifiers | Tool |
executeToolWithValidation() | Implementation in name | execute() |
When Changing Code
Rule: Never document old behavior or the change in names.
<Bad> ```typescript // During refactoring class NewAuthService { } // References the change class ImprovedValidator { } // References improvement class UnifiedAPIClient { } // References unification ``` </Bad> <Good> ```typescript // During refactoring class AuthService { } // What it is class Validator { } // What it does class APIClient { } // What it is ``` </Good>Red Flags - STOP and Rename
If you catch yourself writing:
- "New", "Old", "Legacy", "Improved", "Enhanced"
- "Unified", "Refactored", "Updated", "Modern"
- Implementation details ("Zod", "JSON", "MCP", "SQL")
- Unnecessary pattern names ("Factory", "Builder", "Manager")
- Redundant qualifiers ("Abstract", "Base", "Interface")
STOP. Find a name describing actual purpose in the domain.
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Need to distinguish from old version" | Old version shouldn't exist or should be in different namespace. |
| "New developers need to know it's improved" | Code quality shows in behavior, not names. |
| "Factory pattern is important here" | If pattern is core purpose, fine. Usually it's not. |
| "Everyone knows what Zod is" | Today they do. Names should outlive dependencies. |
| "It IS a wrapper around MCP" | That's implementation. What does it DO in your domain? |
Verification
Before committing names:
- Name describes domain purpose
- No implementation details
- No temporal context
- No unnecessary pattern names
- Forms readable sentences with other code
- No "new", "old", "improved", "wrapper"
Real-World Examples
Bad Naming (Don't Do This)
class ImprovedZodConfigValidator { } // ❌ Temporal + implementation const newAPIClientWithRetry = new Client(); // ❌ Temporal + implementation function executeEnhancedToolFactory() { } // ❌ Temporal + pattern noise // Using them const validator = new ImprovedZodConfigValidator(); validator.validateWithNewSchema();
Good Naming
class ConfigValidator { } // ✅ Domain purpose const apiClient = new Client(); // ✅ What it is function createTool() { } // ✅ What it does // Using them - reads like domain language const validator = new ConfigValidator(); validator.validate();
Integration with Other Skills
For tactical variable naming: See skills/naming-variables for comprehensive variable naming techniques (optimal length, scope rules, conventions for booleans/collections/qualifiers, naming as diagnostic tool)
For comment guidelines: See skills/writing-evergreen-comments for keeping comments evergreen (no temporal context in comments either)