complexity-rework
Skill14 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when code is hard to follow and is to be audited or reworked: long if/else or switch chains, cascades of type checks or parse attempts, kind fields compared to strings, flag parameters, deep nesting, a function hard to read. Also for complexity guardrails, or one long conditional function pasted. Produces a ranked audit of families, one family reworked behind characterization tests, or the guardrails.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Ovich/charretteword for word, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- Ovich/charrette★ 14100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- brainstormSkill
- brainswarmSkill
- interviewSkill
- whiteboard-defenseSkill
- deepen-moduleSkill
- dependency-graphSkill
- simplify-reworkSkill
- simplifySkill
- write-diagramsSkill
- aiviewSkill
- swarm-boardSkill
- execute-planSkill
- long-horizonSkill
- orchestrate-planSkill
- guide-complexitySkill
- guide-createSkill
- guide-deepen-moduleSkill
- helpSkill
- next-stepSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- cold-readSkill
- write-planSkill
- roadmapSkill
- technical-writingSkill
- write-conventionsSkill
- pr-reviewSkill
- recurring-review-findingsSkill
- swarmSkill
- design-prototypeSkill
- point-atSkill
- validate-deliverySkill
- verification-skill-createSkill
- create-workbenchSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 44
Add no dependency without the person's yes: not an analyzer in CI, not a pattern-matching library, not a rule engine.
≈ “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.
Files
Complexity rework
Branching is the symptom; the cause is usually late typing. Data enters typed by a schema and is handled as a bag, so every consumer rediscovers its shape by trying parsers and comparing strings. Look for that before splitting a function, and look for a domain rule before touching anything: ifs over values are the domain, and "reviewed, left alone" is a result.
The phases
One artefact each, and a stop. Read only the reference of the phase being run.
| Phase | Produces | Stops for | Read |
| 1 Audit | the report: families ranked, a shape each, what each must preserve | the person's choice of families and their order | references/audit.md, and references/measure.md for the numbers |
| 2 Characterize | one commit of tests pinning today's outputs, green on the old code | an output that looks wrong | references/characterize.md |
| 3 Rework | one family, commit by commit, the tests unchanged | any diff in a pinned output | references/rework.md |
| 4 Guard | a complexity limit, exhaustiveness, a check for the pattern, a convention proposed | the person's yes on the convention | references/guard.md |
references/target-shapes.md when a family is given its shape (phases 1 and 3). references/languages.md when a shape, an exhaustiveness check or a lint rule is named: the project's language and version decide its form.
Where to start
| The ask | Phases |
| audit, where is it complex, what to clean up | 1, then stop |
| one function pasted | 1 on it alone, no measuring; name the other places likely to share its data |
| apply, rework family X, an approved audit | 2 then 3, one family at a time |
| guardrails, stop this coming back | 4 |
A phase whose input is missing runs first: no rework without its tests, no tests without the family's audit entry.
Rules
Two measures, three bands each, the line the audit measures against, the rework aims for and the guard enforces:
Measure Good Review Fail Cyclomatic (independent paths) 1 to 6 7 to 10 11+ Cognitive (nesting-weighted) 0 to 10 11 to 15 16+ A reworked function in a fail band is not done: split it further, or name the rule it encodes in an inline exception. A review band is read, not rewritten by default. The bands are a house convention (the thresholds in the literature are McCabe's and Sonar's choices, not findings).
- Add no dependency without the person's yes: not an analyzer in CI, not a pattern-matching library, not a rule engine.
- When the project plans its work in documents (a plan, a ticket per change), the audit is their input and each family is one piece of work that runs phases 2 and 3.
Red flags
| Thought | Reality |
| "The shape is obvious, I'll declare the type" | The schema, enum or generated client already infers it. A second copy drifts. |
| "The change is mechanical, characterization is overhead" | The accidental fall-through and the null for corrupt input live in the mechanics, and are lost there silently. |
| "That pinned output is wrong anyway, I'll fix it on the way" | Reported in phase 2, fixed as its own change. Folded into the rework it is invisible in review. |
| "This switch needs a default, to be safe" | A default hides the next case from the compiler. Unknown input is handled once, at the parse. |
| "Complexity 40, it must be reworked" | A high count with no fingerprint is usually a business rule. Reviewed and left alone is a result. |
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
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.