Validation-first development
Define state machines from requirements before implementation. Specifications say what the system MUST do. Encode compile-time properties in types first, then layer state machine modeling for properties types cannot express.
Modern insight (2025): State machines exist on a spectrum from runtime enums to compile-time typestates. Use the strongest mechanism available. XState v5 introduces actor model semantics -- state machines are now first-class concurrent entities, not just enum switches.
See approaches for language-specific state machine mechanisms. See examples for brief state machine patterns per language. See formal-tools for specification and model checking tools.
State Machine Taxonomy (decision guidance)
| Level | Mechanism | Strength | Use When | |-------|-----------|----------|----------| | Typestate (compile-time) | Generic type params, phantom data | Invalid transitions unrepresentable | Protocol APIs, builder patterns, Rust FFI | | Statecharts (hierarchical) | Nested states, parallel regions | Complex workflows, entry/exit | Game state, multi-modal UI, XState | | Flat FSM (runtime) | Enum + match/switch | Simple, auditable | Order lifecycle, connection mgmt | | Actor model | Independent entities, message passing | Concurrent state | Distributed systems, Erlang/Elixir, XState v5 |
Default choice: Use the strongest mechanism the language supports. Typestate in Rust, sealed classes in Kotlin, discriminated unions in TypeScript.
Validation Levels
Type system (strongest) > State machine > Contract > Runtime check (weakest)
When to Apply
- Protocol implementations (network, API, auth flows)
- Workflow engines (approval chains, CI/CD pipelines)
- Concurrent/distributed systems (coordination state)
- Order lifecycle (e-commerce, payments, shipping)
- Connection/session management
- Actor systems with message-driven state
- Event sourcing aggregates (command validation against current state)
When NOT to Apply
- Stateless REST endpoints
- Pure data transformations (map/filter/reduce)
- Simple CRUD without lifecycle
- Configuration parsing
- Batch processing without state
Anti-patterns
- Boolean soup:
{ isLoading: true, isError: true, data: X }-- contradictory states representable. Use discriminated unions instead. - Stringly-typed states:
state: "pending"with no exhaustiveness check - Partial transition coverage: Some transitions undefined -- runtime "impossible" states
- Split-brain: State and behavior in separate modules -- changes require cross-module updates
- Invariants at boundaries only: Check invariants at every transition, not just entry/exit
- Implicit transitions: State changes scattered across codebase -- impossible to audit
- State explosion without hierarchy: Flat FSM with 50+ states -- use statecharts (nested states)
Pseudocode Template
STATE MACHINE: <Name>
STATES: S1 | S2 | S3
VARIABLES: var1: type, var2: type
INIT: var1 = val, state = S1
ACTION name(args): PRE: guard -> POST: new_state, effects
INVARIANT: condition_that_always_holds
Event Sourcing Integration
When state machines guard event-sourced aggregates:
- Command arrives -> validate against current aggregate state machine
- If transition valid -> emit immutable event
- State rebuilt from event replay
- Invalid transitions rejected before events created -- impossible to corrupt event log
Workflow (language-neutral)
- PLAN -- Identify states, variables, actions, invariants from requirements. Draw state diagram.
- CREATE -- Define state machine spec using pseudocode template. Choose mechanism level (typestate/FSM/actor).
- VERIFY -- Type-check, confirm exhaustive matching on all states, validate invariants hold at every transition.
- IMPLEMENT -- Target code mirrors spec. One state type, one transition function, one invariant check per concern.
Constitutional Rules (Non-Negotiable)
- CREATE First: Define state machine specification from plan
- Invariants Must Hold: All invariants verified at every transition
- Actions Must Type: All actions type-check with exhaustive matching
- Implementation Follows Spec: Target code mirrors specification structure
Validation Gates
| Gate | Pass Criteria | Blocking | |------|---------------|----------| | Typecheck | No errors; exhaustive match where language enforces it | Yes | | Invariants | All invariant assertions pass after each action | Yes | | Tests | All state transition tests pass | If present |
Exit Codes
| Code | Meaning | |------|---------| | 0 | Specification verified, ready for implementation | | 11 | Checker not available | | 12 | Syntax/type errors in specification | | 13 | Invariant violation detected | | 14 | Specification tests failed | | 15 | Implementation incomplete |