naming-consultant

Purpose

Suggest clear, consistent names for code elements (variables, functions, classes, files) based on what they actually do and the naming conventions already in use nearby — not generic naming advice detached from context.

When to Use

• A name feels vague, misleading, or inconsistent with the rest of the codebase.
• Naming something new and want options grounded in existing conventions.
• Reviewing a PR and a name doesn't clearly communicate intent.

What to Analyze / Do

1. Understand what the thing actually does — a name should reflect behavior/purpose, not implementation detail that might change.
2. Check surrounding naming conventions — casing style (camelCase/snake_case/PascalCase), verb conventions (get/fetch/load for retrieval — pick whichever the codebase already uses consistently), boolean naming (is/has/should prefixes), and match them rather than introducing a new convention.
3. Avoid both extremes — names that are too generic (data, handler, temp, item2) and names that are needlessly verbose (theListOfActiveUserAccountObjectsForCurrentSession).
4. Flag names that actively mislead — a variable named userList that's actually a Map, or a function named getUser that also has a side effect (writes to the database) — naming should reflect what the code actually does, and misleading names are a correctness/trust issue, not just style.
5. Offer 2-3 alternatives when there's genuine ambiguity about the best name, with a brief note on the trade-off between them.

Output Format

• For each name reviewed: current name → issue (if any) → suggested name(s) → why.
• Group by whether the issue is "unclear/generic" vs. "actively misleading" — misleading names are higher priority to fix.
• If suggesting a new name for something not yet named, give 2-3 options with the reasoning for each.

Avoid

• Suggesting a rename purely for personal stylistic preference when the current name is clear and follows existing conventions.
• Recommending a naming convention that conflicts with what the rest of the codebase already consistently uses.
• Over-explaining trivial, already-clear names — focus effort on the ones that are actually unclear or misleading.