Smithery is now a part of Arcade.dev! Read more in our announcement here
Use when creating or modifying classes, modules, or functions. Use when feeling pressure to add functionality to existing code. Use when class has multiple reasons to change.
A class should have only one reason to change.
Every module, class, or function should have responsibility over a single part of functionality. If you can describe what a class does using "AND", it has too many responsibilities.
NEVER add functionality that introduces a second reason to change.
No exceptions:
Violating SRP under pressure is still violating SRP.
Describe your class in one sentence. If it contains "AND", split it.
| Description | Verdict |
|---|---|
| "Handles user authentication" | ✅ Single responsibility |
| "Handles authentication AND sends emails" | ❌ Two responsibilities |
| "Manages orders AND processes payments AND tracks inventory" | ❌ Three responsibilities |
List why this class might need to change:
// ❌ BAD: UserManager - 4 reasons to change
class UserManager {
login() {} // Auth logic changes
updateProfile() {} // Profile requirements change
sendEmail() {} // Email provider changes
trackAnalytics() {} // Analytics requirements change
}
// ✅ GOOD: Split by responsibility
class AuthService { login() {} }
class ProfileService { updateProfile() {} }
class NotificationService { sendEmail() {} }
class AnalyticsService { track() {} }
When pressured to violate SRP, follow this:
"Just make it work quickly"
Response: Creating a god class takes the same time as creating focused classes. The "quick" solution creates technical debt that costs 10x more later.
Action: Create separate classes. It's not slower.
"The class already exists, just add to it"
Response: Adding to a bloated class makes it worse. The fact that it's already wrong doesn't justify making it more wrong.
Action: Create a new focused class. Refactor the existing one if time permits.
"My tech lead said put it all in one class"
Response: Respectfully push back with evidence. If overruled, document your concern and comply—but NEVER silently create god classes.
Action:
"I'd recommend splitting this because [specific reason].
If we keep it together, we'll likely need to refactor when [consequence].
Should I proceed with the split, or document this as tech debt?"
"While you're in there, also add X"
Response: New functionality = new class (or existing appropriate class).
Action: "X belongs in its own service. I'll create XService."
If you notice ANY of these, you're about to violate SRP:
All of these mean: Split the class.
When you encounter an existing god class:
// Found: OrderService with 500 lines handling orders, payments, inventory, emails
// ❌ WRONG: Add shipping logic to OrderService
// ✅ RIGHT: Create ShippingService, note that OrderService needs refactoring
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "It's faster to put it in one class" | It's not. You type the same code either way. |
| "Small classes are over-engineering" | Small classes are correct engineering. |
| "It's just one more method" | That's how god classes start. Every time. |
| "We can refactor later" | You won't. Tech debt compounds. |
| "The class is already big" | That's a reason to stop, not continue. |
| "It's related functionality" | Related ≠ same responsibility. |
| "Section comments help navigate" | If you need navigation, class is too big. |
| Symptom | Action |
|---|---|
| Class does X AND Y | Split into XService and YService |
| Adding unrelated method | Create new class |
| File > 200 lines | Look for extraction opportunities |
| Multiple reasons to change | One class per reason |
| "Manager/Handler/Processor" name | Be more specific or split |
One class. One responsibility. One reason to change.
When pressured to violate this: push back, document, or create the right structure anyway.
God classes are never the answer, regardless of time pressure, existing code, or authority demands.
