Systematic refactoring with small-step discipline. Use when user says 'refactor', 'clean up', 'restructure', 'extract', 'rename', 'simplify', or mentions code smells. Enforces one change → test → commit cycle. For structural improvements, NOT style/formatting (use /lint). NOT for adding features or fixing bugs.
Content & Writing
85 Stars
2 Forks
Updated Jan 19, 2026, 04:39 AM
Why Use This
This skill provides specialized capabilities for aiskillstore's codebase.
Use Cases
Developing new features in the aiskillstore repository
Refactoring existing code to follow aiskillstore standards
Understanding and working with aiskillstore's codebase structure
---
name: refactoring
description: Systematic refactoring with small-step discipline. Use when user says 'refactor', 'clean up', 'restructure', 'extract', 'rename', 'simplify', or mentions code smells. Enforces one change → test → commit cycle. For structural improvements, NOT style/formatting (use /lint). NOT for adding features or fixing bugs.
allowed-tools: '*'
---
# Refactoring
Improve code structure without changing behavior. One small step at a time.
**Iron Law:** ONE REFACTORING → TEST → COMMIT. Never batch changes.
## When to Use
Answer IN ORDER. Stop at first match:
1. User says "refactor", "clean up", "restructure"? → Use this skill
2. User asks to "extract", "rename", "simplify"? → Use this skill
3. Code smell identified? → Use this skill
4. User wants to add feature or fix bug? → Skip (use tdd-enforcer)
5. User wants formatting/style fixes? → Skip (use /lint)
**Code smells** (common triggers):
- Duplicated code (same logic in multiple places)
- Long function (>30 lines, doing too much)
- Magic numbers/strings (unexplained literals)
- Deep nesting (>3 levels of indentation)
- Dead code (unused functions, unreachable branches)
- Poor naming (unclear what something does)
---
## Phase 1: ASSESS
**Is this actually refactoring?**
| User Intent | Action |
| ------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- |
| "Make this cleaner" | ✓ Refactoring |
| "Add validation" | ✗ New behavior → tdd-enforcer |
| "Fix this bug" | ✗ Bug fix → tdd-enforcer or systematic-debugger |
| "Format this code" | ✗ Style → /lint |
**If not refactoring:** Explain and suggest correct approach.
---
## Phase 2: PROTECT
**Does the code have tests?**
| Coverage | Action |
| ---------------- | --------------------------------------------- |
| Well-tested | Skip to Phase 3 |
| Partial coverage | Add characterization tests for untested parts |
| No tests | Add characterization tests first |
### Characterization Tests
Capture current behavior before refactoring:
```typescript
// Characterization test - captures ACTUAL behavior
it('processOrder returns current behavior', () => {
const result = processOrder({ items: [], user: null });
// Whatever it returns NOW is the expected value
expect(result).toEqual({ status: 'empty', total: 0 });
});
```
**Purpose:** Safety net, not specification. Test what the code DOES, not what it SHOULD do.
---
## Phase 3: REFACTOR
**Iron Law:** ONE refactoring at a time. Run tests after EVERY change.
### Refactoring Catalog
**Tier 1 - Always Safe** (no behavior change possible):
| Smell | Refactoring | Example |
| -------------------- | -------------------- | -------------------------------------- |
| Unclear name | **Rename** | `d` → `discountAmount` |
| Long function | **Extract Function** | Pull 10 lines into `calculateTax()` |
| Unnecessary variable | **Inline Variable** | Remove `temp = x; return temp;` |
| Misplaced code | **Move Function** | Move `validate()` to `Validator` class |
```typescript
// ❌ Before: unclear name
const d = price * 0.2;
// ✅ After: Rename
const discountAmount = price * 0.2;
```
**Tier 2 - Safe with Tests** (low risk if tests exist):
| Smell | Refactoring | Example |
| ------------------- | ------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- |
| Repeated expression | **Extract Variable** | `order.items.length > 0` → `const hasItems = ...` |
| Complex conditional | **Decompose Conditional** | Extract `if` branches to named functions |
| Nested conditionals | **Guard Clauses** | Early returns instead of deep nesting |
| Magic literal | **Replace Magic Literal** | `0.2` → `VIP_DISCOUNT_RATE` |
| Unused code | **Remove Dead Code** | Delete unreachable branches |
```typescript
// ❌ Before: nested conditionals
function getDiscount(user) {
if (user) {
if (user.isVIP) {
return 0.2;
} else {
return 0.1;
}
}
return 0;
}
// ✅ After: Guard Clauses
function getDiscount(user) {
if (!user) return 0;
if (user.isVIP) return 0.2;
return 0.1;
}
```
**Tier 3 - Requires Care** (higher risk, break into smaller steps):
| Smell | Refactoring | Caution |
| -------------------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------- |
| God class | **Extract Class** | Do incrementally, move one method at a time |
| Type-checking conditionals | **Replace with Polymorphism** | Requires class hierarchy |
| Too many parameters | **Introduce Parameter Object** | Changes function signature |
| Complex loop | **Replace Loop with Pipeline** | Ensure equivalent behavior |
**Tie-breaker:** If multiple refactorings apply, choose smallest scope first (Rename < Extract Variable < Extract Function < Extract Class).
---
## Phase 4: VERIFY
After each refactoring:
1. **Run tests** - Must pass
2. **If tests pass:** Commit with `refactor: [what changed]`
3. **If tests fail:** Revert immediately
### Revert Protocol
```bash
git checkout -- <changed-files>
```
**After revert:**
- Was the refactoring too large? → Try smaller step
- Did it accidentally change behavior? → Reconsider approach
- DO NOT attempt to "fix" a failed refactoring
### After 2 Failed Attempts
**STOP.** Ask user:
> "I've attempted this refactoring twice and tests keep failing. This suggests either:
>
> 1. The refactoring is too large (need smaller steps)
> 2. The code has hidden dependencies
> 3. Tests are brittle
>
> How would you like to proceed?"
---
## Phase 5: ITERATE
```text
More refactoring needed?
├─ Yes → Return to Phase 3 (one more refactoring)
└─ No → Done
└─ Report: "Refactoring complete. Changes: [summary]"
```
---
## Edge Cases
**Partial test coverage:**
- Identify which functions are tested vs untested
- Add characterization tests only for code you're about to refactor
- Don't boil the ocean - test what you touch
**Refactoring reveals a bug:**
- STOP refactoring
- Note the bug location
- Ask user: "Found potential bug at X. Fix it now (switching to tdd-enforcer) or continue refactoring?"
**User requests large refactoring:**
- Break into steps: "I'll refactor this incrementally. First: [step 1]"
- Complete each step fully before next
- Never batch multiple refactorings in one edit
---
## Anti-Patterns
| Don't | Do |
| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- |
| Batch multiple refactorings | One refactoring → test → commit |
| "Fix" a failed refactoring | Revert, then try smaller step |
| Refactor without tests | Add characterization tests first |
| Change behavior during refactor | That's a feature/fix, not refactoring |
| Skip the commit | Commit after every green test |
---
## Key Takeaways
1. **One change at a time** - Never batch refactorings
2. **Tests before refactoring** - No safety net = no refactoring
3. **Revert on failure** - Don't fix, revert and retry smaller
4. **Commit after each success** - `refactor: [description]`
5. **Smallest scope first** - Rename < Extract < Move < Restructure