naming-conventions
Concept of the skill
What it is: Naming conventions are the rules that make artifact names truthful, predictable, and searchable across code, routes, data, configuration, and documentation-adjacent developer surfaces.
Mental model: A name is a compact contract: artifact kind decides casing, grammar decides the role of each word, and verbs/nouns promise behavior. A good name lets the reader infer what the artifact does before opening the implementation.
Why it exists: Names are read far more often than they are written. Choosing them deliberately prevents hidden cost: stale domain words, false verb promises, casing inconsistency, and missed references during renames.
What it is NOT: It is not whole-code refactoring, whole-diff code review, prose style guidance, product microcopy, or debugging a failed behavior after the name has already misled someone.
Adjacent concepts: Semantics, linguistics, refactor, code-review, debugging, version-control, and information architecture.
One-line analogy: Naming is like labeling circuit breakers: a short label is useful only when it truthfully names the circuit it controls.
Common misconception: Naming is not cosmetic. A misleading identifier creates a wrong model in every caller and reader, even when the code compiles.