agentleFS
vasceannievasceannie/slopgate/.agents/skills/gitnexus-refactoring/SKILL.md

gitnexus-refactoring

Skill1 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when the user wants to rename, extract, split, move, or restructure code safely. Examples: \"Rename this function\", \"Extract this into a module\", \"Refactor this class\", \"Move this to a separate file\"

Files
SKILL.md

Refactoring with GitNexus

When to Use

  • "Rename this function safely"
  • "Extract this into a module"
  • "Split this service"
  • "Move this to a new file"
  • Any task involving renaming, extracting, splitting, or restructuring code

Workflow

1. impact({target: "X", direction: "upstream"})  → Map all dependents
2. query({search_query: "X"})                            → Find execution flows involving X
3. context({name: "X"})                           → See all incoming/outgoing refs
4. Plan update order: interfaces → implementations → callers → tests

If "Index is stale" → run node .gitnexus/run.cjs analyze in terminal.

Checklists

Rename Symbol

- [ ] rename({symbol_name: "oldName", new_name: "newName", dry_run: true}) — preview all edits
- [ ] Review graph edits (high confidence) and text_search edits (review carefully)
- [ ] If satisfied: rename({..., dry_run: false}) — apply edits
- [ ] detect_changes() — verify only expected files changed
- [ ] Run tests for affected processes

Extract Module

- [ ] context({name: target}) — see all incoming/outgoing refs
- [ ] impact({target, direction: "upstream"}) — find all external callers
- [ ] Define new module interface
- [ ] Extract code, update imports
- [ ] detect_changes() — verify affected scope
- [ ] Run tests for affected processes

Split Function/Service

- [ ] context({name: target}) — understand all callees
- [ ] Group callees by responsibility
- [ ] impact({target, direction: "upstream"}) — map callers to update
- [ ] Create new functions/services
- [ ] Update callers
- [ ] detect_changes() — verify affected scope
- [ ] Run tests for affected processes

Tools

rename — automated multi-file rename:

rename({symbol_name: "validateUser", new_name: "authenticateUser", dry_run: true})
→ 12 edits across 8 files
→ 10 graph edits (high confidence), 2 text_search edits (review)
→ Changes: [{file_path, edits: [{line, old_text, new_text, confidence}]}]

impact — map all dependents first:

impact({target: "validateUser", direction: "upstream"})
→ d=1: loginHandler, apiMiddleware, testUtils
→ Affected Processes: LoginFlow, TokenRefresh

detect_changes — verify your changes after refactoring:

detect_changes({scope: "all"})
→ Changed: 8 files, 12 symbols
→ Affected processes: LoginFlow, TokenRefresh
→ Risk: MEDIUM

partial: true (a graph query failed) or truncated: true (the changed-symbol listing was capped) means the result is short of the truth: a short or empty list is not proof that only the expected files changed. Re-run it rather than treat the refactor as verified.

cypher — custom reference queries:

MATCH (caller)-[:CodeRelation {type: 'CALLS'}]->(f:Function {name: "validateUser"})
RETURN caller.name, caller.filePath ORDER BY caller.filePath

Risk Rules

Risk FactorMitigation
Many callers (>5)Use rename for automated updates
Cross-area refsUse detect_changes after to verify scope
String/dynamic refsquery to find them
External/public APIVersion and deprecate properly

Example: Rename validateUser to authenticateUser

1. rename({symbol_name: "validateUser", new_name: "authenticateUser", dry_run: true})
   → 12 edits: 10 graph (safe), 2 text_search (review)
   → Files: validator.ts, login.ts, middleware.ts, config.json...

2. Review text_search edits (config.json: dynamic reference!)

3. rename({symbol_name: "validateUser", new_name: "authenticateUser", dry_run: false})
   → Applied 12 edits across 8 files

4. detect_changes({scope: "all"})
   → Affected: LoginFlow, TokenRefresh
   → Risk: MEDIUM — run tests for these flows

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.