Use when reviewing code for anti-patterns. Keywords: anti-pattern, common mistake, pitfall, code smell, bad practice, code review, is this an anti-pattern, better way to do this, common mistake to avoid, why is this bad, idiomatic way, beginner mistake, fighting borrow checker, clone everywhere, unwrap in production, should I refactor, 反模式, 常见错误, 代码异味, 最佳实践, 地道写法
48
52%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Fix and improve this skill with Tessl
tessl review fix ./skills/m15-anti-pattern/SKILL.mdLayer 2: Design Choices
Is this pattern hiding a design problem?
When reviewing code:
| Anti-Pattern | Why Bad | Better |
|---|---|---|
.clone() everywhere | Hides ownership issues | Proper references or ownership |
.unwrap() in production | Runtime panics | ?, expect, or handling |
Rc when single owner | Unnecessary overhead | Simple ownership |
unsafe for convenience | UB risk | Find safe pattern |
OOP via Deref | Misleading API | Composition, traits |
| Giant match arms | Unmaintainable | Extract to methods |
String everywhere | Allocation waste | &str, Cow<str> |
Ignoring #[must_use] | Lost errors | Handle or let _ = |
When seeing suspicious code:
Is this symptom or cause?
What would idiomatic code look like?
Does this fight Rust?
To design understanding:
"Why does my code have so many clones?"
↑ Ask: Is the ownership model correct?
↑ Check: m09-domain (data flow design)
↑ Check: m01-ownership (reference patterns)| Anti-Pattern | Trace To | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Clone everywhere | m01-ownership | Who should own this data? |
| Unwrap everywhere | m06-error-handling | What's the error strategy? |
| Rc everywhere | m09-domain | Is ownership clear? |
| Fighting lifetimes | m09-domain | Should data structure change? |
To implementation (Layer 1):
"Replace clone with proper ownership"
↓ m01-ownership: Reference patterns
↓ m02-resource: Smart pointer if needed
"Replace unwrap with proper handling"
↓ m06-error-handling: ? operator
↓ m06-error-handling: expect with message| Rank | Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clone to escape borrow checker | Use references |
| 2 | Unwrap in production | Propagate with ? |
| 3 | String for everything | Use &str |
| 4 | Index loops | Use iterators |
| 5 | Fighting lifetimes | Restructure to own data |
| Smell | Indicates | Refactoring |
|---|---|---|
Many .clone() | Ownership unclear | Clarify data flow |
Many .unwrap() | Error handling missing | Add proper handling |
Many pub fields | Encapsulation broken | Private + accessors |
| Deep nesting | Complex logic | Extract methods |
| Long functions | Multiple responsibilities | Split |
| Giant enums | Missing abstraction | Trait + types |
| Error | Anti-Pattern Cause | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| E0382 use after move | Cloning vs ownership | Proper references |
| Panic in production | Unwrap everywhere | ?, matching |
| Slow performance | String for all text | &str, Cow |
| Borrow checker fights | Wrong structure | Restructure |
| Memory bloat | Rc/Arc everywhere | Simple ownership |
| Deprecated | Better |
|---|---|
| Index-based loops | .iter(), .enumerate() |
collect::<Vec<_>>() then iterate | Chain iterators |
| Manual unsafe cell | Cell, RefCell |
mem::transmute for casts | as or TryFrom |
| Custom linked list | Vec, VecDeque |
lazy_static! | std::sync::OnceLock |
.clone() without justification.unwrap() in library codepub fields with invariantsString where &str suffices#[must_use] warningsunsafe without SAFETY comment| When | See |
|---|---|
| Ownership patterns | m01-ownership |
| Error handling | m06-error-handling |
| Mental models | m14-mental-model |
| Performance | m10-performance |
fa60f79
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.