agentleFS
DGouronDGouron/review-flow/.claude/skills/refactor-feature/SKILL.md

refactor-feature

Skill44 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Autonomous refactoring via spec-driven development. Orchestrates contract tests, batch planning, and incremental implementation with regression checks. Reuses feature-planner and feature-implementer agents.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

14 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈10

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    If the spec is vague or missing, suggest /product-manager to structure it.

    line 52
  2. Distinctive:

    Read the spec (file or GitHub issue)

    line 60
  3. Distinctive:

    Read the current code of main impacted files

    line 61
  4. Distinctive:

    Strangler Fig: if old code must stay functional during migration

    line 63
  5. Distinctive:

    Mikado: if dependencies are complex to untangle

    line 64
  6. Distinctive:

    Import swap: if it's a simple import replacement (sub-case of Strangler)

    line 65
  7. Distinctive:

    Ask the user if not obvious

    line 66
  8. Very specific:

    Create the tracking file per /refactoring skill conventions:

    line 181
  9. Distinctive:

    After each batch, run:

    line 200
  10. Distinctive:

    ALWAYS: write contract tests BEFORE modifying anything

    line 274
  11. Very specific:

    ALWAYS: run regression check (yarn test:ci) after each batch

    line 276
  12. Distinctive:

    ALWAYS: wait for validation between batches

    line 277
  13. Distinctive:

    NEVER: delete old code until the new code is tested

    line 279
  14. Very specific:

    Do NOT commit — the user decides when via /commit

    line 280

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Refactor Feature — Spec-Driven Refactoring Orchestrator

Role

You are the orchestrator of a spec-driven refactoring pipeline. You coordinate two agents to modify existing code safely, with tests, incrementally.

You do NOT code yourself. You coordinate, present, and validate with the user.

Difference with /implement-feature

Aspect/implement-feature/refactor-feature
GoalCreate code from scratchModify/delete existing code
Key phaseTDD inside-out (RED first)Contract tests (GREEN first)
PlanFiles to create by layerFiles to modify/delete, by batch
ProgressionFinal reportIncremental tracking in docs/refactor/
Main risk"it doesn't work"Regression on existing consumers

Agents

AgentRoleSkills preloaded
feature-plannerAnalyzes the spec, produces a refactoring plan by batchclean-architecture
feature-implementerImplements modifications with TDD, self-reviewtdd, clean-architecture

Skills consumed

SkillWhat we usePhase
/refactoringMethodology (Mikado / Strangler Fig), tracking file structure, batch workflowPhase 0 (method choice) + Phase 2 (tracking)
/tddRED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. In Phase 1, twist: GREEN first instead of RED firstPhase 1 (contract tests) + Phase 3 (implementation)

Input

The user provides either:

  • A path to a spec: /refactor-feature docs/specs/my-refactoring.md
  • A GitHub issue: /refactor-feature #42
  • An inline description

If the spec is vague or missing, suggest /product-manager to structure it.


Workflow

Phase 0: LOAD SPEC + CHOOSE METHOD

  1. Read the spec (file or GitHub issue)
  2. Read the current code of main impacted files
  3. Choose the method (/refactoring conventions):
    • Strangler Fig if old code must stay functional during migration
    • Mikado if dependencies are complex to untangle
    • Import swap if it's a simple import replacement (sub-case of Strangler)
    • Ask the user if not obvious
  4. Display a summary:
Refactoring Context

SPEC: [title]
METHOD: [Strangler Fig / Mikado / Import swap]
SCOPE: [count] files to modify, [count] to delete

FIXES:
  - [fix 1] — [file]
  ...

MIGRATIONS:
  - [file] — [old → new]
  ...

RISKS:
  - [identified regression]
  ...

Continue?

Phase 1: CONTRACT TESTS (twist /tdd — GREEN first)

BEFORE any modification, capture current behavior.

Classic TDD (/tdd) starts with RED. Here, we invert: we write tests that PASS immediately with existing code. These tests become the safety net for all subsequent phases.

Delegate to the feature-implementer with special instructions:

MODE: CONTRACT TESTS (not classic TDD)

Write tests that PASS with the CURRENT code.
These tests capture the existing contract and serve as safety net during refactoring.

RULES:
- Tests must be GREEN from the start (not RED)
- Test OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR, not implementation details
- Cover nominal cases + edge cases from the spec
- Run tests and confirm they ALL pass
- Use existing factories and stubs
- Structure: src/tests/units/ mirroring source

FILES TO COVER:
[list of files to be modified]

BEHAVIORS TO CAPTURE:
[Gherkin scenarios — what MUST continue working after refactoring]

After receiving result:

Contract Tests

TESTS CREATED: [count]
ALL GREEN: yes/no

Captured behaviors:
  - [test] → [behavior]
  ...

These tests are our safety net.
Move to planning?

If tests fail → STOP. The current code has a pre-existing bug. Signal to user: continue (test documents the bug) or fix first.

Phase 2: PLAN

Delegate to the feature-planner with refactoring context:

MODE: REFACTORING (not new feature)

Do NOT create new entities/usecases/gateways (unless the spec explicitly asks).
Plan the MODIFICATION of existing files, split into batches.

SPEC: [full spec content]

CONSTRAINTS:
- Each batch must be autonomous (all tests pass after the batch)
- Order: foundational fixes first, then consumer migrations one by one
- Max 5-8 files per batch
- If a modified file has an existing test, include it in the batch

OUTPUT FORMAT:

PLAN:
  type: refactoring
  spec_file: [path]

  BATCH_1: [descriptive name]
    MODIFY:
      - [path] — [what changes and why]
    DELETE:
      - [path] — [why]
    TESTS:
      - [path] — [test to create/modify]
    regression_command: yarn test:ci

  BATCH_2: [descriptive name]
    ...

  IMPLEMENTATION_ORDER:
    1. Batch 1 — [justification]
    2. Batch 2 — [justification]

Present the plan to the user. Wait for explicit validation.

Create the tracking file per /refactoring skill conventions:

  • Location: docs/refactor/00-[method]-[objective].md
  • Structure: progress table by batch with status
  • Committed with the code as living documentation

Phase 3: IMPLEMENT BY BATCH

For each batch in the plan:

3a. Delegate to feature-implementer

Pass:

  • The complete spec
  • The current batch plan only
  • The list of contract tests (safety net)
  • Instructions: classic TDD (RED-GREEN-REFACTOR) for modifications

3b. Regression check (orchestrator)

After each batch, run:

yarn test:ci
  • All tests pass (including Phase 1 contract tests) → continue
  • Tests fail → STOP, signal to user

3c. Update tracking file

  • Mark batch as completed
  • Note modified files and date

3d. Batch report

Batch [N]/[total]: [name] — Done

FILES MODIFIED: [count]
  - [path] — [change]

TESTS: [X] pass / [Y] total
REGRESSIONS: none

Next batch: [name]
Continue?

Wait for validation between each batch unless the user explicitly asks to chain them.

Phase 4: FINAL REPORT

Refactoring Report

SPEC: [title]
STATUS: Complete | Partial | Failed

BATCHES: [N]/[total] completed

FILES MODIFIED: [total count]
  - [path] — [change]
  ...

FILES DELETED: [count]
  - [path]
  ...

TESTS:
  Contract tests (Phase 1): [count] — all GREEN
  New tests: [count]
  Modified tests: [count]
  Regressions: none

SELF-REVIEW:
  Iterations: [count]
  Violations found: [count]
  Violations fixed: [count]

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
  Given... When... Then... → covered by [test]
  ...

NEXT STEPS:
  - [ ] /commit to commit changes
  - [ ] Update tracking file if multi-ticket
  - [ ] E2E if relevant

Rules

  • ALWAYS write contract tests BEFORE modifying anything
  • ALWAYS present the plan before implementing
  • ALWAYS run regression check (yarn test:ci) after each batch
  • ALWAYS wait for validation between batches
  • NEVER modify without user validation of the plan
  • NEVER delete old code until the new code is tested
  • Do NOT commit — the user decides when via /commit

Error Handling

SituationAction
Vague specRefuse, suggest /product-manager
Contract tests fail on current codeSTOP — pre-existing bug, ask user
Regression after a batchSTOP — diagnose, do not continue
Plan > 8 files per batchSplit into smaller batches
Tests fail after 3 fix loopsSurface unresolved issues in the report
File out of spec scopeDo NOT touch, signal to user

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.