refactoring-patterns

name	refactoring-patterns
description	Safe refactoring workflow and common patterns. Invoke when extracting methods, renaming, moving code, or addressing code smells.

Refactoring Patterns Skill

When to Use

Invoke this skill when:

• Code smells are detected (long functions, duplicated logic, shotgun surgery)
• Before making major structural changes to existing code
• During tech debt sprints or cleanup tasks
• A function exceeds 30 lines and needs decomposition
• Renaming, moving, or reorganizing code across files or packages

The Golden Rule

Tests green -> Refactor -> Tests green

Never refactor code that lacks test coverage. If tests don't exist, write them first (characterization tests that capture current behavior), then refactor.

Safe Refactoring Steps

1. Verify tests pass before touching anything. Run the full suite for the affected area.
2. Make one refactoring move at a time. Never combine multiple refactorings in a single change.
3. Run tests after each move. If anything fails, you know exactly which move broke it.
4. Commit after each successful step. Small commits make git bisect possible and rollback trivial.
5. If tests fail, revert the last move. Do not debug forward -- undo and try a different approach.

[tests pass] -> extract method -> [tests pass] -> commit
             -> rename variable -> [tests pass] -> commit
             -> move to new file -> [tests pass] -> commit
             -> [tests FAIL] -> git revert -> rethink

Common Patterns

Extract Method

Smell: Function too long, or comments explaining what a block does.

Action: Pull the block into a named function. The function name replaces the comment.

When: A function has distinct logical sections separated by blank lines or comments. Each section becomes its own function.

Extract Class / Module

Smell: A class or module has multiple unrelated responsibilities. Changes for different reasons.

Action: Split into separate classes/modules, each with a single responsibility.

When: You find yourself prefixing method groups (userCreate, userDelete, orderCreate, orderDelete in one class) or the file exceeds 500 lines with distinct sections.

Inline

Smell: Indirection adds complexity without clarity. A function just calls another function. A variable is used once and the expression is self-explanatory.

Action: Replace the indirection with the direct call or expression.

When: The abstraction layer adds no value -- the delegated function is equally readable inline.

Move

Smell: A function or type is referenced more from another package/module than from its current one.

Action: Move it to where it belongs. Update all references.

When: Feature envy -- a function uses more data from another module than its own. Or the current package has grown a "utils" section that really belongs elsewhere.

Rename

Smell: Name doesn't reveal intent. Requires reading the implementation to understand purpose.

Action: Rename to communicate what it does, not how it does it.

When: You find yourself re-reading a function body to remember what it does. Variable names like data, result, temp, val, or single letters outside tight loops.

Replace Conditional with Polymorphism

Smell: Switch/if chains that check a type field and execute different logic per type.

Action: Define an interface with the varying behavior. Each type implements the interface.

When: The same type-check conditional appears in multiple places. Adding a new type requires modifying multiple switch statements.

Introduce Parameter Object

Smell: Three or more related parameters always travel together across multiple functions.

Action: Group them into a struct, class, or typed object.

When: You see the same cluster of parameters in multiple function signatures (startDate, endDate, timezone or host, port, protocol).

Replace Magic Number with Named Constant

Smell: Literal values embedded in logic with no explanation of their meaning.

Action: Extract to a named constant that explains the value's purpose.

When: A number or string literal appears in a condition, calculation, or configuration and its meaning is not immediately obvious (if retries > 3, timeout: 30000).

Per-Language Tooling

Language	Rename	Extract / Refactor	Format / Fix
Go	gorename, gopls rename	gopls refactor.extract	go fmt, goimports
TypeScript	ts-morph, IDE rename symbol	IDE extract function/variable	eslint --fix, prettier
Python	rope, IDE rename symbol	IDE extract method/variable	ruff --fix, black

Prefer IDE-assisted refactoring (rename symbol, extract function) over manual find-and-replace. Automated tools update all references and catch type errors.

Red Flags -- When NOT to Refactor

• No tests cover the code being refactored. Write characterization tests first or accept the risk explicitly.
• Refactoring across module boundaries without coordination. If the public API changes, downstream consumers break. Coordinate or version the API.
• Changing public APIs without versioning. If external code depends on it, add a new version instead of modifying in place.
• Mixing refactoring with feature work in the same commit. Refactoring commits should be behavior-preserving. Feature commits should add new behavior. Mixing makes rollback impossible and code review painful.
• Refactoring code you don't understand. Read it first. Write characterization tests. Talk to the original author if available. Refactoring without understanding introduces subtle bugs.

Pre-Ship Checklist

Before merging refactored code, verify:

1. All tests pass (unit, integration, E2E for affected area)
2. No behavior changed -- refactoring is strictly structural
3. Each commit is a single refactoring move (reviewable in isolation)
4. No refactoring and feature work mixed in the same commit
5. Public API signatures are unchanged (or changes are versioned and documented)
6. No dead code left behind (or marked with // TODO: AI_DELETION_REVIEW)
7. Code review confirms readability improved (the whole point of refactoring)
8. CI pipeline is green on the final state