cyclomatic-complexity
Skill391 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Refactor code to reduce cyclomatic complexity so it stays readable, maintainable, and aligned with the long-term vision of the codebase, not just optimized for AI comprehension. Use whenever the user asks to refactor, simplify, clean up, or review code quality; mentions complexity, maintainability, readability, spaghetti code, deeply nested logic, or god functions; or asks to check AI-generated code before merging. Also use proactively after writing any nontrivial function with heavy branching.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- auralshin/coding-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 27, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- auralshin/coding-skills★ 0same name
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.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
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 22
Prefer real tools over eyeballing when environment allows:
- Distinctive: line 28
No tool available: count manually, per function, show the count.
- Distinctive: line 34
Lookup table / map: instead of if-else or switch chains.
- Distinctive: line 42
Don't game the metric. A dense one-liner hiding 6 branches is worse than the honest if-chain it replaced.
- Distinctive: line 43
Don't break public APIs or exported signatures without asking.
- Distinctive: line 53
Verify: tests pass, behavior unchanged, diff reviewable.
- Distinctive: line 69
Keep prose minimal. Numbers and diffs do the talking.
≈ “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
Cyclomatic Complexity
Purpose: AI-written code often works but branches like a jungle. This skill: measure complexity, refactor hotspots, keep code human-maintainable.
Measure first
CC = decision points + 1. Decision points: if, else if, case, loops, catch, ternary, &&, || in conditions.
Project linter config wins. If eslintrc, radon config, sonar config, or similar sets a complexity threshold, use that. No config: use defaults below.
Thresholds:
- 1-5: fine, leave alone
- 6-10: watch, refactor if touching anyway
- 11-15: refactor now
- 15+: must split, no debate
Prefer real tools over eyeballing when environment allows:
- Python:
radon cc -s -a <path> - JS/TS: eslint
complexityrule - Go:
gocyclo - Polyglot:
lizard <path>
No tool available: count manually, per function, show the count.
Refactor tactics, in order of preference
- Guard clauses. Invert conditions, return early, kill nesting.
- Extract function. Each extracted piece gets a name that says what, not how. Names are documentation.
- Lookup table / map instead of if-else or switch chains.
- Named predicates.
if (isEligibleForRefund(order))beats a 4-clause boolean soup. - Polymorphism / strategy for switch-on-type. Only when the switch appears in 2+ places.
- Flatten loops. Extract loop body, use continue instead of nested if.
Hard rules
- Preserve behavior. Run tests before and after. No tests: say so, suggest adding, refactor conservatively.
- Don't game the metric. A dense one-liner hiding 6 branches is worse than the honest if-chain it replaced. Complexity should move into well-named units, not disappear into cleverness.
- Don't break public APIs or exported signatures without asking.
- Small functions with clear names > few functions with comments explaining sections.
- One responsibility per function. If the name needs "and", split.
Workflow
- Measure all touched functions, rank by CC descending.
- Report hotspots with numbers before touching anything.
- Refactor worst first, one function at a time.
- Re-measure. Show before/after table: function, CC before, CC after.
- Verify: tests pass, behavior unchanged, diff reviewable.
Output format
End every refactor with:
## Complexity report
| Function | Before | After |
|----------|--------|-------|
| parseOrder | 14 | 4 |
Extracted: validateHeader, resolveDiscount
Behavior verified: <how>Keep prose minimal. Numbers and diffs do the talking.
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.