Linterdiction

Linterdiction is the practice or policy of discouraging, restricting, or prohibiting automated linting tools within a software project or organization. It describes formal governance decisions and informal attitudes that limit or bypass static analysis performed by linters. The term combines linter with interdiction, the act of forbidding an action.

Common motivations include concerns about perceived performance overhead, disagreements over rule sets, and the belief that rapid prototyping benefits from fewer automated checks. Some teams view linting as friction that slows development, while others worry about false positives or the maintenance burden of keeping configurations consistent across languages.

Implementation may involve removing linting configurations, disabling pre-commit hooks, gating CI to skip lint checks, or adding inline suppressions that bypass rules. It can also mean banning certain rules or entire lint suites, or avoiding centralized configuration in favor of ad hoc checks.

Potential benefits include faster feedback in early development, simpler onboarding without a unified lint policy, and reduced cognitive load from irrelevant rules. However, linterdiction can lead to poorer code quality, greater technical debt, readability problems, and higher risk of bugs or security issues as projects grow.

Critics advocate calibrated enforcement, such as minimal or selectively enforced configurations, incremental rule adoption, or project-specific policies backed by code review. Proponents emphasize linting’s role in consistency and maintainability, while linterdiction is seen as a risk to long-term quality.

See also: lint, static analysis, code quality, continuous integration.