home / skills / thebushidocollective / han / refactoring

refactoring skill

/core/skills/refactoring

This skill guides safe, incremental refactoring by enforcing tests, small commits, and reversible steps to improve code quality.

npx playbooks add skill thebushidocollective/han --skill refactoring

Review the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.

Files (1)
SKILL.md
12.6 KB
---
name: refactoring
description: Use when restructuring code to improve quality without changing external behavior. Emphasizes safety through tests and incremental changes.
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - Write
  - Edit
  - Bash
  - Grep
  - Glob
---

# Refactoring Skill

Improve code structure and quality while preserving behavior.

## Core Principle

**Tests are your safety net.** Never refactor without tests.

## The Refactoring Cycle

1. **Ensure tests exist and pass**
2. **Make ONE small change**
3. **Run tests** (must still pass)
4. **Commit** (keep changes isolated)
5. **Repeat**

**Each step must be reversible.** If tests fail, revert and try smaller change.

## Pre-Refactoring Checklist

**STOP if any of these are false:**

- [ ] Tests exist for code being refactored
- [ ] All tests currently pass
- [ ] Understand what code does
- [ ] External behavior will remain unchanged
- [ ] Have time to do this properly (not rushing)

**If no tests exist:**

1. Add tests first
2. Verify tests pass
3. THEN refactor

## When to Refactor

### Code Smells That Suggest Refactoring

**Readability issues:**

- Long functions (> 50 lines)
- Deep nesting (> 3 levels)
- Unclear naming
- Magic numbers
- Complex conditionals

**Maintainability issues:**

- Duplication (same code in multiple places)
- God classes (too many responsibilities)
- Feature envy (method uses another class more than its own)
- Data clumps (same groups of parameters passed around)

**Complexity issues:**

- Cyclomatic complexity > 10
- Too many dependencies
- Tightly coupled code
- Difficult to test

### When NOT to Refactor

- **No tests exist** (add tests first)
- **Under deadline pressure** (defer to later)
- **Code works and is readable** (don't over-engineer)
- **Changing external behavior** (that's not refactoring, that's a feature/fix)
- **Right before release** (too risky)

## Classic Refactorings

### Extract Function

**Problem:** Function does too many things

```typescript
// Before: Long function doing multiple things
function processOrder(order: Order) {
  // Validate order
  if (!order.items || order.items.length === 0) {
    throw new Error('Empty order')
  }
  if (!order.customer || !order.customer.email) {
    throw new Error('Invalid customer')
  }

  // Calculate totals
  let subtotal = 0
  for (const item of order.items) {
    subtotal += item.price * item.quantity
  }
  const tax = subtotal * 0.08
  const shipping = subtotal > 50 ? 0 : 9.99
  const total = subtotal + tax + shipping

  // Save to database
  return database.save({
    ...order,
    subtotal,
    tax,
    shipping,
    total
  })
}

// After: Extracted into focused functions
function processOrder(order: Order) {
  validateOrder(order)
  const totals = calculateTotals(order)
  return saveOrder(order, totals)
}

function validateOrder(order: Order): void {
  if (!order.items || order.items.length === 0) {
    throw new Error('Empty order')
  }
  if (!order.customer || !order.customer.email) {
    throw new Error('Invalid customer')
  }
}

function calculateTotals(order: Order) {
  const subtotal = order.items.reduce(
    (sum, item) => sum + item.price * item.quantity,
    0
  )
  const tax = subtotal * 0.08
  const shipping = subtotal > 50 ? 0 : 9.99
  const total = subtotal + tax + shipping

  return { subtotal, tax, shipping, total }
}

function saveOrder(order: Order, totals: Totals) {
  return database.save({ ...order, ...totals })
}
```

**Benefits:** Each function has single responsibility, easier to test, easier to understand

### Extract Variable

**Problem:** Complex expression that's hard to understand

```typescript
// Before: Dense, hard to parse
if (user.age >= 18 && user.country === 'US' && !user.banned && user.verified) {
  // ...
}

// After: Intent is clear
const isAdult = user.age >= 18
const isUSResident = user.country === 'US'
const hasGoodStanding = !user.banned && user.verified
const canPurchase = isAdult && isUSResident && hasGoodStanding

if (canPurchase) {
  // ...
}
```

**Benefits:** Self-documenting, easier to debug, easier to modify

### Inline Function/Variable

**Problem:** Unnecessary indirection that doesn't add clarity

```typescript
// Before: Over-abstraction
function getTotal(order: Order) {
  return calculateTotalAmount(order)
}

function calculateTotalAmount(order: Order) {
  return order.subtotal + order.tax
}

// After: Inline the unnecessary layer
function getTotal(order: Order) {
  return order.subtotal + order.tax
}
```

**When to inline:** Abstraction doesn't add value, makes code harder to follow

### Rename

**Problem:** Unclear or misleading names

```typescript
// Before: Unclear
function proc(d: any) {
  const r = d.x * d.y
  return r
}

// After: Self-explanatory
function calculateArea(dimensions: Dimensions) {
  const area = dimensions.width * dimensions.height
  return area
}
```

**Benefits:** Code is self-documenting, no need to guess what variables mean

### Replace Magic Number with Named Constant

**Problem:** Unexplained numbers in code

```typescript
// Before: What's 0.08? What's 9.99?
const tax = subtotal * 0.08
const shipping = subtotal > 50 ? 0 : 9.99

// After: Clear meaning
const TAX_RATE = 0.08
const FREE_SHIPPING_THRESHOLD = 50
const STANDARD_SHIPPING_COST = 9.99

const tax = subtotal * TAX_RATE
const shipping = subtotal > FREE_SHIPPING_THRESHOLD ? 0 : STANDARD_SHIPPING_COST
```

### Remove Duplication

**Problem:** Same code in multiple places

```typescript
// Before: Duplication
function formatUserName(user: User) {
  return `${user.firstName} ${user.lastName}`.trim()
}

function formatAdminName(admin: Admin) {
  return `${admin.firstName} ${admin.lastName}`.trim()
}

function formatAuthorName(author: Author) {
  return `${author.firstName} ${author.lastName}`.trim()
}

// After: One implementation
function formatFullName(person: { firstName: string; lastName: string }) {
  return `${person.firstName} ${person.lastName}`.trim()
}

// Usage
formatFullName(user)
formatFullName(admin)
formatFullName(author)
```

### Simplify Conditional

**Problem:** Complex nested if/else

```typescript
// Before: Nested conditionals
function getShippingCost(order: Order) {
  if (order.total > 100) {
    return 0
  } else {
    if (order.items.length > 5) {
      return 5.99
    } else {
      if (order.weight > 10) {
        return 15.99
      } else {
        return 9.99
      }
    }
  }
}

// After: Early returns, flat structure
function getShippingCost(order: Order) {
  if (order.total > 100) return 0
  if (order.items.length > 5) return 5.99
  if (order.weight > 10) return 15.99
  return 9.99
}

// Or: Look-up table
const SHIPPING_RULES = [
  { condition: (o: Order) => o.total > 100, cost: 0 },
  { condition: (o: Order) => o.items.length > 5, cost: 5.99 },
  { condition: (o: Order) => o.weight > 10, cost: 15.99 },
]

function getShippingCost(order: Order) {
  const rule = SHIPPING_RULES.find(r => r.condition(order))
  return rule?.cost ?? 9.99
}
```

### Replace Conditional with Polymorphism

**Problem:** Type checks scattered throughout code

```typescript
// Before: Type checking everywhere
function calculatePrice(item: Item) {
  if (item.type === 'book') {
    return item.basePrice * 0.9  // 10% discount
  } else if (item.type === 'electronics') {
    return item.basePrice * 1.15  // 15% markup
  } else if (item.type === 'clothing') {
    return item.basePrice
  }
}

// After: Polymorphism
interface Item {
  calculatePrice(): number
}

class Book implements Item {
  calculatePrice() {
    return this.basePrice * 0.9
  }
}

class Electronics implements Item {
  calculatePrice() {
    return this.basePrice * 1.15
  }
}

class Clothing implements Item {
  calculatePrice() {
    return this.basePrice
  }
}

// Usage: No type checking needed
const price = item.calculatePrice()
```

### Split Function

**Problem:** Function tries to do too many things

```typescript
// Before: Does validation, calculation, and saving
function processPayment(payment: Payment) {
  // Validation
  if (!payment.amount || payment.amount <= 0) {
    throw new Error('Invalid amount')
  }
  if (!payment.method) {
    throw new Error('Payment method required')
  }

  // Calculation
  const fee = payment.amount * 0.029 + 0.30
  const total = payment.amount + fee

  // Persistence
  const record = database.save({
    amount: payment.amount,
    fee,
    total,
    method: payment.method,
    timestamp: Date.now()
  })

  // Notification
  notificationService.send({
    user: payment.user,
    message: `Payment of $${total} processed`
  })

  return record
}

// After: Separate concerns
function processPayment(payment: Payment) {
  validatePayment(payment)
  const totals = calculatePaymentTotals(payment)
  const record = savePayment(payment, totals)
  notifyPaymentProcessed(payment.user, totals.total)
  return record
}
```

## Refactoring Workflow

### Step-by-Step Process

```bash
# 1. Ensure tests pass
npm test
# ✅ All tests passing

# 2. Make ONE refactoring change
# Example: Extract function

# 3. Run tests immediately
npm test
# ✅ Still passing

# 4. Commit with descriptive message
git add .
git commit -m "refactor: extract validateOrder function"

# 5. Repeat for next refactoring
# Make another small change, test, commit
```

### If Tests Fail After Refactoring

```bash
# Tests failed after refactoring

# Option 1: Revert and try smaller change
git reset --hard HEAD
# Make smaller, safer change

# Option 2: Debug and fix
# Find what broke
# Fix it
# Run tests again
```

## Refactoring Strategies

### The Boy Scout Rule

**"Leave code better than you found it"**

When touching code for any reason:

1. Fix obvious issues you see
2. Improve naming
3. Extract complex expressions
4. Add missing tests
5. Remove commented code

**Small improvements accumulate**

### Preparatory Refactoring

**Before adding feature, refactor to make it easy**

```
1. Need to add feature
2. Current code structure makes it hard
3. Refactor first to make space
4. Then add feature in clean code
```

**Quote:** "Make the change easy, then make the easy change"

### Opportunistic Refactoring

**Fix things you notice while working**

- Fixing bug? Clean up surrounding code
- Adding feature? Improve structure
- Reading code? Fix confusing names

### Planned Refactoring

**Dedicated time to improve code health**

- Tech debt tickets
- Refactoring sprints
- Clean-up sessions

## Refactoring Safety Checklist

**Before every change:**

- [ ] Tests exist
- [ ] Tests pass
- [ ] Understand what code does

**After every change:**

- [ ] Tests still pass
- [ ] No functionality changed
- [ ] Code is clearer
- [ ] Ready to commit

**If tests fail:**

- [ ] Understand why
- [ ] Fix or revert
- [ ] Never commit broken tests

## Integration with Other Skills

Apply these skills during refactoring:

- **boy-scout-rule** - Leave code better than found
- **simplicity-principles** - KISS, YAGNI, simple is better
- **solid-principles** - Single Responsibility, etc.
- **structural-design-principles** - Composition, encapsulation
- **test-driven-development** - Add tests if missing
- **proof-of-work** - Verify tests still pass
- **code-reviewer** - Review refactored code

## Common Refactoring Pitfalls

### ❌ Refactoring Without Tests

**Risk:** Change behavior without noticing

**Solution:** Add tests first, then refactor

### ❌ Too Many Changes at Once

**Risk:** Hard to debug if something breaks

**Solution:** One refactoring at a time, commit frequently

### ❌ Changing Behavior

**Risk:** It's not refactoring if behavior changes

**Solution:** Tests must still pass, functionality unchanged

### ❌ Over-Engineering

**Risk:** More complex after "refactoring"

**Solution:** Simpler is better, don't add unnecessary abstraction

### ❌ Refactoring Under Pressure

**Risk:** Mistakes due to rushing

**Solution:** Defer to when you have time to do it right

## Measuring Refactoring Success

**Good refactoring results in:**

- ✅ Easier to understand
- ✅ Easier to modify
- ✅ Easier to test
- ✅ Fewer lines of code (usually)
- ✅ Lower complexity
- ✅ Same or better performance
- ✅ All tests still pass

**If any test fails, it wasn't successful refactoring**

## Tools

**Automated refactoring tools:**

- IDE refactoring commands (safe)
- Rename variable/function (safe)
- Extract method (safe)
- Move file (safe)

**Manual refactoring:**

- Make small changes
- Test frequently
- Commit after each change
- Use version control as safety net

## Remember

1. **Tests first** - No refactoring without tests
2. **Small steps** - One change at a time
3. **Test after each step** - Must stay green
4. **Commit frequently** - Each safe change gets a commit
5. **Behavior unchanged** - If behavior changes, it's not refactoring

**Refactoring is about improving structure without changing what the code does.**

Overview

This skill guides safe, incremental code refactoring to improve structure and quality without changing external behavior. It emphasizes tests as the safety net and a repeatable cycle of small changes, test, and commit. Use it to reduce complexity, remove duplication, and make code easier to understand and maintain.

How this skill works

The skill enforces a strict workflow: ensure tests exist and pass, make one small change, run tests immediately, and commit if all tests remain green. Each change must be reversible; if tests fail, revert and try a smaller, safer edit. It provides concrete refactoring patterns (extract function/variable, rename, replace magic numbers, simplify conditionals, etc.) and checklists to avoid common pitfalls.

When to use it

  • When code has readability or maintainability problems (long functions, deep nesting, unclear names)
  • When you see duplication, god classes, or complex conditionals that are hard to test
  • Before adding a new feature to make the change easier and safer
  • During dedicated tech-debt or refactoring sprints
  • Never when tests are missing, under severe deadline pressure, or when changing external behavior

Best practices

  • Always add or verify tests for the code you touch before refactoring
  • Make one small, focused change at a time and run tests after each change
  • Commit frequently with descriptive messages to keep changes isolated
  • Prefer clarity and simplicity: avoid over-engineering or unnecessary abstractions
  • Use IDE automated refactor tools where safe, and keep version control as a safety net

Example use cases

  • Extracting validation and calculation logic from a long order-processing function into focused helpers
  • Replacing repeated formatting code across modules with a single utility function
  • Renaming unclear variables and functions to make intent self-documenting
  • Replacing magic numbers like tax rates with named constants
  • Refactoring nested conditionals into flat early-return logic or lookup rules

FAQ

What if there are no tests?

Add tests first. Refactor only after you have tests that assert current behavior and pass.

How large should a refactoring change be?

Keep changes minimal and focused—one logical transformation per commit so failures are easy to debug.

When is refactoring too risky?

Avoid refactoring right before release, under tight deadlines, or when it would change external behavior.