refactoring
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.
Best use case
refactoring is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
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.
Teams using refactoring should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/refactoring/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How refactoring Compares
| Feature / Agent | refactoring | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
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.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
SKILL.md Source
# 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 < RestructureRelated Skills
refactoring-ui
Audit and fix visual hierarchy, spacing, color, and depth in web UIs. Use when the user mentions "my UI looks off", "fix the design", "Tailwind styling", "color palette", or "visual hierarchy". Covers grayscale-first workflow, constrained design scales, shadows, and component styling. For typeface selection, see web-typography. For usability audits, see ux-heuristics. Trigger with 'refactoring', 'ui'.
java-refactoring-remove-parameter
Refactoring using Remove Parameter in Java Language
java-refactoring-extract-method
Refactoring using Extract Methods in Java Language
dry-refactoring
Guides systematic code refactoring following the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle. Use when user asks to eliminate code duplication, refactor repetitive code, apply DRY principle, or mentions code smells like copy-paste, magic numbers, or repeated logic. Implements a 4-step workflow from identifying repetition to verified refactoring.
code-refactoring-tech-debt
You are a technical debt expert specializing in identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing technical debt in software projects. Analyze the codebase to uncover debt, assess its impact, and create acti
code-refactoring-refactor-clean
You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.
code-refactoring-context-restore
Use when working with code refactoring context restore
component-refactoring
Refactor high-complexity React components in Dify frontend. Use when `pnpm analyze-component --json` shows complexity > 50 or lineCount > 300, when the user asks for code splitting, hook extraction, or complexity reduction, or when `pnpm analyze-component` warns to refactor before testing; avoid for simple/well-structured components, third-party wrappers, or when the user explicitly wants testing without refactoring.
Code Refactoring
## Refactoring Principles
Daily Logs
Record the user's daily activities, progress, decisions, and learnings in a structured, chronological format.
Socratic Method: The Dialectic Engine
This skill transforms Claude into a Socratic agent — a cognitive partner who guides
Sokratische Methode: Die Dialektik-Maschine
Dieser Skill verwandelt Claude in einen sokratischen Agenten — einen kognitiven Partner, der Nutzende durch systematisches Fragen zur Wissensentdeckung führt, anstatt direkt zu instruieren.