refactor

Code refactoring workflow - analyze → plan → implement → review → validate

422 stars

Best use case

refactor is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

Code refactoring workflow - analyze → plan → implement → review → validate

Teams using refactor 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

$curl -o ~/.claude/skills/refactor/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vibeeval/vibecosystem/main/skills/refactor/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

  1. Download SKILL.md from GitHub
  2. Place it in .claude/skills/refactor/SKILL.md inside your project
  3. Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill

How refactor Compares

Feature / AgentrefactorStandard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

Code refactoring workflow - analyze → plan → implement → review → validate

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

# /refactor - Refactoring Workflow

Safe refactoring with review gates.

## When to Use

- "Refactor X"
- "Clean up this code"
- "Extract this into a module"
- "Improve the architecture of Y"
- Large-scale code restructuring
- Technical debt reduction

## Workflow Overview

```
┌──────────┐    ┌────────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌───────────┐
│ phoenix  │───▶│   plan-    │───▶│  kraken  │───▶│plan-reviewer│───▶│ arbiter  │
│          │    │   agent    │    │          │    │          │    │           │
└──────────┘    └────────────┘    └──────────┘    └──────────┘    └───────────┘
  Analyze         Plan             Implement       Review          Verify
  current         changes          refactor        changes         tests pass
```

## Agent Sequence

| # | Agent | Role | Output |
|---|-------|------|--------|
| 1 | **phoenix** | Analyze current code, identify improvement areas | Analysis report |
| 2 | **plan-agent** | Create safe refactoring plan | Step-by-step plan |
| 3 | **kraken** | Implement the refactoring | Code changes |
| 4 | **plan-reviewer** | Review changes for correctness | Review report |
| 5 | **arbiter** | Verify all tests still pass | Test report |

## Refactoring Principles

1. **Tests first**: Ensure adequate test coverage before refactoring
2. **Small steps**: Each change should be independently verifiable
3. **Behavior preserved**: No functional changes during refactor
4. **Reviewable**: Changes should be easy to review

## Execution

### Phase 1: Analyze

```
Task(
  subagent_type="phoenix",
  prompt="""
  Analyze for refactoring: [TARGET_CODE]

  Identify:
  - Current pain points
  - Code smells
  - Improvement opportunities
  - Risk areas
  - Test coverage gaps
  """
)
```

### Phase 2: Plan

```
Task(
  subagent_type="plan-agent",
  prompt="""
  Plan refactoring: [TARGET_CODE]

  Analysis: [from phoenix]

  Create:
  - Step-by-step refactoring plan
  - Each step should be:
    - Small and focused
    - Independently testable
    - Reversible
  - Identify files affected
  - Risk mitigation strategy
  """
)
```

### Phase 3: Implement

```
Task(
  subagent_type="kraken",
  prompt="""
  Implement refactoring: [TARGET_CODE]

  Plan: [from plan-agent]

  Requirements:
  - Follow plan exactly
  - Run tests after each step
  - Stop if tests fail
  - NO behavior changes
  """
)
```

### Phase 4: Review

```
Task(
  subagent_type="plan-reviewer",
  prompt="""
  Review refactoring: [TARGET_CODE]

  Changes: [git diff from kraken]

  Check:
  - Behavior preserved
  - No unintended changes
  - Code quality improved
  - Patterns consistent
  """
)
```

### Phase 5: Validate

```
Task(
  subagent_type="arbiter",
  prompt="""
  Validate refactoring: [TARGET_CODE]

  - Run full test suite
  - Verify no regressions
  - Check type errors
  - Run linting
  """
)
```

## Refactoring Types

### Extract Module
```
phoenix → plan-agent → kraken → plan-reviewer → arbiter
```

### Rename/Restructure
```
phoenix → kraken → arbiter  (simpler, skip detailed planning)
```

### Architecture Change
```
phoenix → plan-agent → [kraken → plan-reviewer] × N phases → arbiter
```

## Example

```
User: /refactor Extract the validation logic into a separate module

Claude: Starting /refactor workflow...

Phase 1: Analyzing current structure...
[Spawns phoenix]
Found: Validation logic spread across 4 files
- form.ts (lines 45-120)
- api.ts (lines 200-280)
- user.ts (lines 15-45)
- order.ts (lines 88-130)

Phase 2: Planning extraction...
[Spawns plan-agent]
Plan:
1. Create src/validation/index.ts
2. Extract common validators
3. Update imports one file at a time
4. Run tests after each change

Phase 3: Implementing...
[Spawns kraken]
Completed all 4 steps, tests green after each

Phase 4: Reviewing changes...
[Spawns plan-reviewer]
✅ All behavior preserved
✅ DRY improved (removed 45 duplicate lines)
✅ New structure consistent

Phase 5: Final validation...
[Spawns arbiter]
✅ 312 tests passing, 0 regressions

Refactoring complete!
```

## Safety Flags

- `--dry-run`: Plan but don't implement
- `--step-by-step`: Pause after each change for approval
- `--coverage-check`: Require >80% coverage before proceeding

Related Skills

workflow-router

422
from vibeeval/vibecosystem

Goal-based workflow orchestration - routes tasks to specialist agents based on user goals

wiring

422
from vibeeval/vibecosystem

Wiring Verification

websocket-patterns

422
from vibeeval/vibecosystem

Connection management, room patterns, reconnection strategies, message buffering, and binary protocol design.

visual-verdict

422
from vibeeval/vibecosystem

Screenshot comparison QA for frontend development. Takes a screenshot of the current implementation, scores it across multiple visual dimensions, and returns a structured PASS/REVISE/FAIL verdict with concrete fixes. Use when implementing UI from a design reference or verifying visual correctness.

verification-loop

422
from vibeeval/vibecosystem

Comprehensive verification system covering build, types, lint, tests, security, and diff review before a PR.

vector-db-patterns

422
from vibeeval/vibecosystem

Embedding strategies, ANN algorithms, hybrid search, RAG chunking strategies, and reranking for semantic search and retrieval.

variant-analysis

422
from vibeeval/vibecosystem

Find similar vulnerabilities across a codebase after discovering one instance. Uses pattern matching, AST search, Semgrep/CodeQL queries, and manual tracing to propagate findings. Adapted from Trail of Bits. Use after finding a bug to check if the same pattern exists elsewhere.

validate-agent

422
from vibeeval/vibecosystem

Validation agent that validates plan tech choices against current best practices

tracing-patterns

422
from vibeeval/vibecosystem

OpenTelemetry setup, span context propagation, sampling strategies, Jaeger queries

tour

422
from vibeeval/vibecosystem

Friendly onboarding tour of Claude Code capabilities for users asking what it can do.

tldr-stats

422
from vibeeval/vibecosystem

Show full session token usage, costs, TLDR savings, and hook activity

tldr-router

422
from vibeeval/vibecosystem

Map code questions to the optimal tldr command by detecting intent and routing to the right analysis layer.