Github · GitHub Repository Radar
multica-ai andrej-karpathy-skills
A single CLAUDE.md file to improve Claude Code behavior, derived from Andrej Karpathy's observations on LLM coding pitfalls.
Stars
210,130
Forks
21,362
Watchers: 210,130
Language
—
Github
Repository Radar Score
52 / 100
Growth
- 7d
- +0
- 30d
- +0
- %
- 0.0%
Not enough metric snapshots yet to chart growth for this repository.
Last observed: 6 days ago
Score breakdown
- popularity 98
- growth 0
- activity 35
- freshness 100
- community 60
Need help integrating this stack?
Our team builds with modern open-source stacks. Tell us what you are shipping.
Get a quote →Check out my new project Multica — an open-source platform for running and managing coding agents with reusable skills.
Follow me on X: https://x.com/jiayuan_jy
A single CLAUDE.md file to improve Claude Code behavior, derived from Andrej Karpathy's observations on LLM coding pitfalls.
English | 简体中文
From Andrej's post:
"The models make wrong assumptions on your behalf and just run along with them without checking. They don't manage their confusion, don't seek clarifications, don't surface inconsistencies, don't present tradeoffs, don't push back when they should."
"They really like to overcomplicate code and APIs, bloat abstractions, don't clean up dead code... implement a bloated construction over 1000 lines when 100 would do."
"They still sometimes change/remove comments and code they don't sufficiently understand as side effects, even if orthogonal to the task."
Four principles in one file that directly address these issues:
| Principle | Addresses |
|---|---|
| Think Before Coding | Wrong assumptions, hidden confusion, missing tradeoffs |
| Simplicity First | Overcomplication, bloated abstractions |
| Surgical Changes | Orthogonal edits, touching code you shouldn't |
| Goal-Driven Execution | Leverage through tests-first, verifiable success criteria |
Don't assume. Don't hide confusion. Surface tradeoffs.
LLMs often pick an interpretation silently and run with it. This principle forces explicit reasoning:
- State assumptions explicitly — If uncertain, ask rather than guess
- Present multiple interpretations — Don't pick silently when ambiguity exists
- Push back when warranted — If a simpler approach exists, say so
- Stop when confused — Name what's unclear and ask for clarification
Minimum code that solves the problem. Nothing speculative.
Combat the tendency toward overengineering:
- 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
The test: Would a senior engineer say this is overcomplicated? If yes, simplify.
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
The test: Every changed line should trace directly to the user's request.
Define success criteria. Loop until verified.
Transform imperative tasks into verifiable goals:
| Instead of... | Transform to... |
|---|---|
| "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:
1. [Step] → verify: [check]
2. [Step] → verify: [check]
3. [Step] → verify: [check]
Strong success criteria let the LLM loop independently. Weak criteria ("make it work") require constant clarification.
Option A: Claude Code Plugin (recommended)
From within Claude Code, first add the marketplace:
/plugin marketplace add forrestchang/andrej-karpathy-skills
Then install the plugin:
/plugin install andrej-karpathy-skills@karpathy-skills
This installs the guidelines as a Claude Code plugin, making the skill available across all your projects.
Option B: CLAUDE.md (per-project)
New project:
curl -o CLAUDE.md https://raw.githubusercontent.com/forrestchang/andrej-karpathy-skills/main/CLAUDE.mdExisting project (append):
echo "" >> CLAUDE.md
curl https://raw.githubusercontent.com/forrestchang/andrej-karpathy-skills/main/CLAUDE.md >> CLAUDE.mdThis repository includes a committed Cursor project rule (.cursor/rules/karpathy-guidelines.mdc) so the same guidelines apply when you open the project in Cursor. See CURSOR.md for setup, using the rule in other projects, and how this relates to Claude Code.
From Andrej:
"LLMs are exceptionally good at looping until they meet specific goals... Don't tell it what to do, give it success criteria and watch it go."
The "Goal-Driven Execution" principle captures this: transform imperative instructions into declarative goals with verification loops.
These guidelines are working if you see:
- Fewer unnecessary changes in diffs — Only requested changes appear
- Fewer rewrites due to overcomplication — Code is simple the first time
- Clarifying questions come before implementation — Not after mistakes
- Clean, minimal PRs — No drive-by refactoring or "improvements"
These guidelines are designed to be merged with project-specific instructions. Add them to your existing CLAUDE.md or create a new one.
For project-specific rules, add sections like:
## Project-Specific Guidelines
- Use TypeScript strict mode
- All API endpoints must have tests
- Follow the existing error handling patterns in `src/utils/errors.ts`These guidelines bias toward caution over speed. For trivial tasks (simple typo fixes, obvious one-liners), use judgment — not every change needs the full rigor.
The goal is reducing costly mistakes on non-trivial work, not slowing down simple tasks.
MIT
Repository Radar analysis
Deterministic insights derived from public metadata and our observations — not personal testing or reviews.
Why this repository is interesting
- High absolute popularity (210,130 stars) signals broad adoption.
Who should use it
- Engineers researching open-source options in this stack
Potential use cases
- Benchmark approach, license, and activity before adopting
- Compare with similar repositories on Repository Radar
Strengths
- README present in our index
- Substantial fork count (21,362) suggests reuse and contribution interest
Limitations / considerations
- License not recorded in our index — confirm on GitHub before production use
What to watch
- Re-check last push, issues, and releases on GitHub before production adoption
Strong signals: Strong community interest
Source: GitHub (public metadata) + Repository Radar analysis. We do not claim ownership of third-party repositories.
Similar repositories
mrdoob/three.js
★ 115,076 · JavaScript · radar 68
ant-design/ant-design
★ 99,374 · TypeScript · radar 68
openclaw/openclaw
★ 388,845 · TypeScript · radar 67
nilbuild/developer-roadmap
★ 366,309 · TypeScript · radar 67
react/react
★ 249,074 · JavaScript · radar 67
n8n-io/n8n
★ 203,331 · TypeScript · radar 67