agentleFS
bex-cobex-co/bex/.claude/skills/rt-remove-dead-code/SKILL.md

rt-remove-dead-code

Skill576 starsChanged 15 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Deletes provably unreachable code using the repo's wired-in analyzers — whole-program deadcode for Go and knip for the dashboard — plus manual cross-language reachability checks before every deletion. Use when the user asks to run the rt-remove-dead-code routine or sweep for unreachable code.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Delete code that provably cannot run, and only that.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    After the verification phase, follow the shipping phase below without asking the user to invoke ship separately.

    line 15
  3. Very specific:

    Every change must pass the verification gates for the modules it touched before being reported as done: operator make test + make lint …

    line 19
  4. Very specific:

    Run npx prettier@3.4.2 --write on any markdown touched.

    line 20
  5. Distinctive:

    Before shipping, summarize results in commentary using: Fixed (file:line + one-line rationale) / Deferred (item + why) / Skipped (finding + …

    line 21
  6. Distinctive:

    Remove confirmed-dead symbols and files together with their now-orphaned tests and imports.

    line 42
  7. Very specific:

    Run gates for touched modules (deadcode runs inside operator make lint).

    line 46

≈ “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

Routine: Dead-Code Removal

Delete code that provably cannot run, and only that.

Routine ground rules

  • A user request to run this routine authorizes the full cycle: plan, fix, verify, then invoke $ship (Codex) or /ship (Claude) directly in the same run. Honor explicit user limits such as audit-only or no-ship.
  • Keep a concise execution plan in the conversation and update it as findings are confirmed. Continue into implementation without a planning approval pause. Do not create or file a .pm milestone/task as a prerequisite or substitute for fixing; use the board only if the user requests it.
  • After the verification phase, follow the shipping phase below without asking the user to invoke ship separately. Preserve the ship skill's branch, conflict-resolution, and safety rules.
  • Fix everything you find directly in the working tree. If a fix can't be finished safely in this run, revert only your partial work for that fix and list it under Deferred in the report — never leave the tree half-refactored.
  • Scope: parse $ARGUMENTS per Phase 1 — an optional path/module scope or skill-specific target. No argument = the skill's stated default (usually the whole repo via parallel agents per module: lego/types, lego/operator, lego/backend, lego/cli, dashboard).
  • False-positive discipline: if a finding is intentional, load-bearing, or ambiguous, skip it with a one-line reason — don't argue it into a change.
  • Every change must pass the verification gates for the modules it touched before being reported as done: operator make test + make lint (from lego/operator/), cd lego/backend && go test ./..., cd lego/cli && go test ./..., dashboard yarn test + typecheck.
  • Run npx prettier@3.4.2 --write on any markdown touched.
  • Before shipping, summarize results in commentary using: Fixed (file:line + one-line rationale) / Deferred (item + why) / Skipped (finding + reason) / Gates (commands run + outcomes).

Phase 1 — Scope

Parse $ARGUMENTS: go | dashboard | a path. Empty = both sides.

Phase 2 — Run the analyzers

  • Go — exactly what CI runs: cd lego/operator && make deadcode && bash hack/deadcode.sh "$PWD/bin/deadcode" (the pinned deadcode, run per module with -tags=e2e -test and the shared types findings intersected; see the script header). make lint runs the same script after golangci-lint.
  • Dashboard — cd dashboard && yarn lint:unused (knip; config in dashboard/knip.jsonc).

Phase 3 — Triage every hit

Before deleting anything:

  • Public API surface, CRD types, generated code (zz_generated*, codegen outputs), and entry points → skip.
  • Helpers used only by the env-gated t.Skip tests (envtest/e2e/live guards — there are ~87 of them) are NOT dead; check the skipped tests before believing the tool.
  • Grep the symbol repo-wide, including cross-language edges the analyzers can't see: dashboard clients, scripts/, workflow YAML, docs examples.

Phase 4 — Delete

Remove confirmed-dead symbols and files together with their now-orphaned tests and imports. Re-run both analyzers; repeat until the output is clean or every remaining hit has a one-line skip reason.

Phase 5 — Verify and report

Run gates for touched modules (deadcode runs inside operator make lint); dashboard also needs a clean yarn lint:unused. Report per the standard format.

Final phase — Ship

After all required gates pass, read and execute the ship skill for the routine's completed changes. Stage only intended changes from this run; preserve unrelated work. Do not end at a plan, findings report, milestone, or request for shipping approval. If there are no changes, report that outcome without creating an empty commit. If a required gate remains blocked or fails after reasonable repairs, report the exact blocker and do not ship unverified changes.

Once the push succeeds, report the shipped HEAD SHA and subject per the ship skill and stop; do not monitor CI or deployment.

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.