refactor

name	refactor
description	Surgical code refactoring to improve maintainability without changing behavior. Covers extracting functions, renaming variables, breaking down god functions, improving type safety, eliminating code smells, and applying design patterns. Less drastic than repo-rebuilder; use for gradual improvements.
license	MIT

Refactor

Overview

Improve code structure and readability without changing external behavior. Refactoring is gradual evolution, not revolution. Use this for improving existing code, not rewriting from scratch.

When to Use

Choose the mode that matches your goal:

Mode	Trigger	Changes
Structural Refactor	Functions too large, god objects, design smells	Function extraction, class decomposition, design patterns
Simplification Mode	Names unclear, logic hard to follow, no structural change needed	Rename, inline, clarify — no structural reshaping
Performance Mode	Measured bottleneck exists, profiler data available	Targeted optimization with before/after benchmark

Use this skill when:

• Code is hard to understand or maintain
• Functions/classes are too large
• Code smells need addressing
• Adding features is difficult due to code structure
• User asks "clean up this code", "refactor this", "improve this"

---

Refactoring Principles

The Golden Rules

1. Behavior is preserved - Refactoring doesn't change what the code does, only how
2. Small steps - Make tiny changes, test after each
3. Version control is your friend - Commit before and after each safe state
4. Tests are essential - Without tests, you're not refactoring, you're editing
5. One thing at a time - Don't mix refactoring with feature changes

When NOT to Refactor

- Code that works and won't change again (if it ain't broke...)
- Critical production code without tests (add tests first)
- When you're under a tight deadline
- "Just because" - need a clear purpose

---

Common Code Smells & Fixes

1. Long Method/Function

# BAD: 200-line function that does everything
- async function processOrder(orderId) {
-   // 50 lines: fetch order
-   // 30 lines: validate order
-   // 40 lines: calculate pricing
-   // 30 lines: update inventory
-   // 20 lines: create shipment
-   // 30 lines: send notifications
- }

# GOOD: Broken into focused functions
+ async function processOrder(orderId) {
+   const order = await fetchOrder(orderId);
+   validateOrder(order);
+   const pricing = calculatePricing(order);
+   await updateInventory(order);
+   const shipment = await createShipment(order);
+   await sendNotifications(order, pricing, shipment);
+   return { order, pricing, shipment };
+ }

2. Duplicated Code

# BAD: Same logic in multiple places
- function calculateUserDiscount(user) {
-   if (user.membership === 'gold') return user.total * 0.2;
-   if (user.membership === 'silver') return user.total * 0.1;
-   return 0;
- }
-
- function calculateOrderDiscount(order) {
-   if (order.user.membership === 'gold') return order.total * 0.2;
-   if (order.user.membership === 'silver') return order.total * 0.1;
-   return 0;
- }

# GOOD: Extract common logic
+ function getMembershipDiscountRate(membership) {
+   const rates = { gold: 0.2, silver: 0.1 };
+   return rates[membership] || 0;
+ }
+
+ function calculateUserDiscount(user) {
+   return user.total * getMembershipDiscountRate(user.membership);
+ }
+
+ function calculateOrderDiscount(order) {
+   return order.total * getMembershipDiscountRate(order.user.membership);
+ }

3. Large Class/Module

# BAD: God object that knows too much
- class UserManager {
-   createUser() { /* ... */ }
-   updateUser() { /* ... */ }
-   deleteUser() { /* ... */ }
-   sendEmail() { /* ... */ }
-   generateReport() { /* ... */ }
-   handlePayment() { /* ... */ }
-   validateAddress() { /* ... */ }
-   // 50 more methods...
- }

# GOOD: Single responsibility per class
+ class UserService {
+   create(data) { /* ... */ }
+   update(id, data) { /* ... */ }
+   delete(id) { /* ... */ }
+ }
+
+ class EmailService {
+   send(to, subject, body) { /* ... */ }
+ }
+
+ class ReportService {
+   generate(type, params) { /* ... */ }
+ }
+
+ class PaymentService {
+   process(amount, method) { /* ... */ }
+ }

4. Long Parameter List

# BAD: Too many parameters
- function createUser(email, password, name, age, address, city, country, phone) {
-   /* ... */
- }

# GOOD: Group related parameters
+ interface UserData {
+   email: string;
+   password: string;
+   name: string;
+   age?: number;
+   address?: Address;
+   phone?: string;
+ }
+
+ function createUser(data: UserData) {
+   /* ... */
+ }

# EVEN BETTER: Use builder pattern for complex construction
+ const user = UserBuilder
+   .email('[e-mail]')
+   .password('secure123')
+   .name('Test User')
+   .address(address)
+   .build();

5. Feature Envy

# BAD: Method that uses another object's data more than its own
- class Order {
-   calculateDiscount(user) {
-     if (user.membershipLevel === 'gold') {
+       return this.total * 0.2;
+     }
+     if (user.accountAge > 365) {
+       return this.total * 0.1;
+     }
+     return 0;
+   }
+ }

# GOOD: Move logic to the object that owns the data
+ class User {
+   getDiscountRate(orderTotal) {
+     if (this.membershipLevel === 'gold') return 0.2;
+     if (this.accountAge > 365) return 0.1;
+     return 0;
+   }
+ }
+
+ class Order {
+   calculateDiscount(user) {
+     return this.total * user.getDiscountRate(this.total);
+   }
+ }

6. Primitive Obsession

# BAD: Using primitives for domain concepts
- function sendEmail(to, subject, body) { /* ... */ }
- sendEmail('[e-mail]', 'Hello', '...');

- function createPhone(country, number) {
-   return `${country}-${number}`;
- }

# GOOD: Use domain types
+ class Email {
+   private constructor(public readonly value: string) {
+     if (!Email.isValid(value)) throw new Error('Invalid email');
+   }
+   static create(value: string) { return new Email(value); }
+   static isValid(email: string) { return /^[^\s@]+@[^\s@]+\.[^\s@]+$/.test(email); }
+ }
+
+ class PhoneNumber {
+   constructor(
+     public readonly country: string,
+     public readonly number: string
+   ) {
+     if (!PhoneNumber.isValid(country, number)) throw new Error('Invalid phone');
+   }
+   toString() { return `${this.country}-${this.number}`; }
+   static isValid(country: string, number: string) { /* ... */ }
+ }
+
+ // Usage
+ const email = Email.create('[e-mail]');
+ const phone = new PhoneNumber('1', '555-1234');

7. Magic Numbers/Strings

# BAD: Unexplained values
- if (user.status === 2) { /* ... */ }
- const discount = total * 0.15;
- setTimeout(callback, 86400000);

# GOOD: Named constants
+ const UserStatus = {
+   ACTIVE: 1,
+   INACTIVE: 2,
+   SUSPENDED: 3
+ } as const;
+
+ const DISCOUNT_RATES = {
+   STANDARD: 0.1,
+   PREMIUM: 0.15,
+   VIP: 0.2
+ } as const;
+
+ const ONE_DAY_MS = 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000;
+
+ if (user.status === UserStatus.INACTIVE) { /* ... */ }
+ const discount = total * DISCOUNT_RATES.PREMIUM;
+ setTimeout(callback, ONE_DAY_MS);

8. Nested Conditionals

# BAD: Arrow code
- function process(order) {
-   if (order) {
-     if (order.user) {
-       if (order.user.isActive) {
-         if (order.total > 0) {
-           return processOrder(order);
+         } else {
+           return { error: 'Invalid total' };
+         }
+       } else {
+         return { error: 'User inactive' };
+       }
+     } else {
+       return { error: 'No user' };
+     }
+   } else {
+     return { error: 'No order' };
+   }
+ }

# GOOD: Guard clauses / early returns
+ function process(order) {
+   if (!order) return { error: 'No order' };
+   if (!order.user) return { error: 'No user' };
+   if (!order.user.isActive) return { error: 'User inactive' };
+   if (order.total <= 0) return { error: 'Invalid total' };
+   return processOrder(order);
+ }

# EVEN BETTER: Using Result type
+ function process(order): Result<ProcessedOrder, Error> {
+   return Result.combine([
+     validateOrderExists(order),
+     validateUserExists(order),
+     validateUserActive(order.user),
+     validateOrderTotal(order)
+   ]).flatMap(() => processOrder(order));
+ }

9. Dead Code

# BAD: Unused code lingers
- function oldImplementation() { /* ... */ }
- const DEPRECATED_VALUE = 5;
- import { unusedThing } from './somewhere';
- // Commented out code
- // function oldCode() { /* ... */ }

# GOOD: Remove it
+ // Delete unused functions, imports, and commented code
+ // If you need it again, git history has it

10. Inappropriate Intimacy

# BAD: One class reaches deep into another
- class OrderProcessor {
-   process(order) {
-     order.user.profile.address.street;  // Too intimate
-     order.repository.connection.config;  // Breaking encapsulation
+   }
+ }

# GOOD: Ask, don't tell
+ class OrderProcessor {
+   process(order) {
+     order.getShippingAddress();  // Order knows how to get it
+     order.save();  // Order knows how to save itself
+   }
+ }

---

Extract Method Refactoring

Before and After

# Before: One long function
- function printReport(users) {
-   console.log('USER REPORT');
-   console.log('============');
-   console.log('');
-   console.log(`Total users: ${users.length}`);
-   console.log('');
-   console.log('ACTIVE USERS');
-   console.log('------------');
-   const active = users.filter(u => u.isActive);
-   active.forEach(u => {
-     console.log(`- ${u.name} (${u.email})`);
-   });
-   console.log('');
-   console.log(`Active: ${active.length}`);
-   console.log('');
-   console.log('INACTIVE USERS');
-   console.log('--------------');
-   const inactive = users.filter(u => !u.isActive);
-   inactive.forEach(u => {
-     console.log(`- ${u.name} (${u.email})`);
-   });
-   console.log('');
-   console.log(`Inactive: ${inactive.length}`);
- }

# After: Extracted methods
+ function printReport(users) {
+   printHeader('USER REPORT');
+   console.log(`Total users: ${users.length}\n`);
+   printUserSection('ACTIVE USERS', users.filter(u => u.isActive));
+   printUserSection('INACTIVE USERS', users.filter(u => !u.isActive));
+ }
+
+ function printHeader(title) {
+   const line = '='.repeat(title.length);
+   console.log(title);
+   console.log(line);
+   console.log('');
+ }
+
+ function printUserSection(title, users) {
+   console.log(title);
+   console.log('-'.repeat(title.length));
+   users.forEach(u => console.log(`- ${u.name} (${u.email})`));
+   console.log('');
+   console.log(`${title.split(' ')[0]}: ${users.length}`);
+   console.log('');
+ }

---

Introducing Type Safety

From Untyped to Typed

# Before: No types
- function calculateDiscount(user, total, membership, date) {
-   if (membership === 'gold' && date.getDay() === 5) {
-     return total * 0.25;
-   }
-   if (membership === 'gold') return total * 0.2;
-   return total * 0.1;
- }

# After: Full type safety
+ type Membership = 'bronze' | 'silver' | 'gold';
+
+ interface User {
+   id: string;
+   name: string;
+   membership: Membership;
+ }
+
+ interface DiscountResult {
+   original: number;
+   discount: number;
+   final: number;
+   rate: number;
+ }
+
+ function calculateDiscount(
+   user: User,
+   total: number,
+   date: Date = new Date()
+ ): DiscountResult {
+   if (total < 0) throw new Error('Total cannot be negative');
+
+   let rate = 0.1; // Default bronze
+
+   if (user.membership === 'gold' && date.getDay() === 5) {
+     rate = 0.25; // Friday bonus for gold
+   } else if (user.membership === 'gold') {
+     rate = 0.2;
+   } else if (user.membership === 'silver') {
+     rate = 0.15;
+   }
+
+   const discount = total * rate;
+
+   return {
+     original: total,
+     discount,
+     final: total - discount,
+     rate
+   };
+ }

---

Design Patterns for Refactoring

Strategy Pattern

# Before: Conditional logic
- function calculateShipping(order, method) {
-   if (method === 'standard') {
-     return order.total > 50 ? 0 : 5.99;
-   } else if (method === 'express') {
-     return order.total > 100 ? 9.99 : 14.99;
+   } else if (method === 'overnight') {
+     return 29.99;
+   }
+ }

# After: Strategy pattern
+ interface ShippingStrategy {
+   calculate(order: Order): number;
+ }
+
+ class StandardShipping implements ShippingStrategy {
+   calculate(order: Order) {
+     return order.total > 50 ? 0 : 5.99;
+   }
+ }
+
+ class ExpressShipping implements ShippingStrategy {
+   calculate(order: Order) {
+     return order.total > 100 ? 9.99 : 14.99;
+   }
+ }
+
+ class OvernightShipping implements ShippingStrategy {
+   calculate(order: Order) {
+     return 29.99;
+   }
+ }
+
+ function calculateShipping(order: Order, strategy: ShippingStrategy) {
+   return strategy.calculate(order);
+ }

Chain of Responsibility

# Before: Nested validation
- function validate(user) {
-   const errors = [];
-   if (!user.email) errors.push('Email required');
+   else if (!isValidEmail(user.email)) errors.push('Invalid email');
+   if (!user.name) errors.push('Name required');
+   if (user.age < 18) errors.push('Must be 18+');
+   if (user.country === 'blocked') errors.push('Country not supported');
+   return errors;
+ }

# After: Chain of responsibility
+ abstract class Validator {
+   abstract validate(user: User): string | null;
+   setNext(validator: Validator): Validator {
+     this.next = validator;
+     return validator;
+   }
+   validate(user: User): string | null {
+     const error = this.doValidate(user);
+     if (error) return error;
+     return this.next?.validate(user) ?? null;
+   }
+ }
+
+ class EmailRequiredValidator extends Validator {
+   doValidate(user: User) {
+     return !user.email ? 'Email required' : null;
+   }
+ }
+
+ class EmailFormatValidator extends Validator {
+   doValidate(user: User) {
+     return user.email && !isValidEmail(user.email) ? 'Invalid email' : null;
+   }
+ }
+
+ // Build the chain
+ const validator = new EmailRequiredValidator()
+   .setNext(new EmailFormatValidator())
+   .setNext(new NameRequiredValidator())
+   .setNext(new AgeValidator())
+   .setNext(new CountryValidator());

---

Refactoring Steps

Safe Refactoring Process

1. PREPARE
   - Ensure tests exist (write them if missing)
   - Commit current state
   - Create feature branch

2. IDENTIFY
   - Find the code smell to address
   - Understand what the code does
   - Plan the refactoring

3. REFACTOR (small steps)
   - Make one small change
   - Run tests
   - Commit if tests pass
   - Repeat

4. VERIFY
   - All tests pass
   - Manual testing if needed
   - Performance unchanged or improved

5. CLEAN UP
   - Update comments
   - Update documentation
   - Final commit

---

Refactoring Checklist

Code Quality

• Functions are small (< 50 lines)
• Functions do one thing
• No duplicated code
• Descriptive names (variables, functions, classes)
• No magic numbers/strings
• Dead code removed

Structure

• Related code is together
• Clear module boundaries
• Dependencies flow in one direction
• No circular dependencies

Type Safety

• Types defined for all public APIs
• No any types without justification
• Nullable types explicitly marked

Testing

• Refactored code is tested
• Tests cover edge cases
• All tests pass

---

Common Refactoring Operations

Operation	Description
Extract Method	Turn code fragment into method
Extract Class	Move behavior to new class
Extract Interface	Create interface from implementation
Inline Method	Move method body back to caller
Inline Class	Move class behavior to caller
Pull Up Method	Move method to superclass
Push Down Method	Move method to subclass
Rename Method/Variable	Improve clarity
Introduce Parameter Object	Group related parameters
Replace Conditional with Polymorphism	Use polymorphism instead of switch/if
Replace Magic Number with Constant	Named constants
Decompose Conditional	Break complex conditions
Consolidate Conditional	Combine duplicate conditions
Replace Nested Conditional with Guard Clauses	Early returns
Introduce Null Object	Eliminate null checks
Replace Type Code with Class/Enum	Strong typing
Replace Inheritance with Delegation	Composition over inheritance

Simplification Mode（輕量模式）

Use when code is hard to read but structure is sound — improve naming, reduce cognitive load, and inline redundancy. Do NOT reshape structure or add new logic.

Difference from Structural Refactor:

Structural Refactor	Simplification Mode
Extract functions, decompose classes	Rename variables, inline trivial helpers
Change call hierarchies	Improve comments, remove noise
Apply design patterns	Reorder code within a function

Chesterton's Fence Principle

Before removing any code, you MUST understand why it exists. If you don't know why it's there, don't remove it.

Steps to apply:

1. Read the code — understand the original intent
2. Check git history (git log -p) for context
3. Search for callers or side effects that might not be obvious
4. Only then decide: simplify, document, or leave it

Rule of 500

If a single function exceeds 500 lines: do NOT attempt crude deletion. Use automated refactoring tools (IDE rename/extract, rope for Python, Roslyn for C#) to split safely.

Prerequisite: Tests First

If no tests exist for the target code:

1. Add minimal coverage first (happy path + error path)
2. Confirm tests pass (Green)
3. Then simplify

Verification

• All existing tests pass (dotnet test / pytest / npm test, exit code 0)
• Build succeeds with no new warnings
• No feature logic or structural changes mixed into this commit
• git diff HEAD --stat confirms only renaming / inline / clarity changes

---

Performance Mode（效能優化模式）

Hard prerequisite — Measure First: Do NOT touch performance-related code without measurement data.

"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." — Knuth

Before any performance change you MUST have:

1. Profiler output (e.g., cProfile, dotTrace, Chrome Performance, pytest-benchmark)
2. Baseline benchmark with reproducible numbers
3. A specific bottleneck identified — not a guess

Anti-Patterns（禁止行為）

Anti-Pattern	Why It's Wrong
Optimizing without baseline	Cannot confirm improvement; risk regression
Optimizing "just in case"	Increases complexity with no proven benefit
Micro-optimizing non-bottleneck paths	Wastes effort; doesn't move the needle

Verification

• Before-and-after benchmark numbers documented (e.g., "P99 latency: 420ms → 180ms")
• All existing tests pass
• No behavior change introduced (pure performance path)
• If optimization required structural change → separate structural refactor commit first

---

Common Rationalizations

在執行重構過程中，AI 可能以下列藉口跨越重構範疇：

常見藉口	反制說明
"順手加個 feature 不會怎樣"	⛔ 重構 = 純行為保留的結構改善——任何新功能或行為變更必須在獨立的 commit 中完成；「順手」是最常見的 scope creep 起點
"這段程式碼看起來沒用，直接刪掉比較乾淨"	Chesterton's Fence 原則——移除任何程式碼前必須先理解「為何有這段」；未理解其存在原因之前，不得刪除
"這個迴圈明顯可以優化，我直接改就好"	無量測基線的效能優化是猜測而非工程——必須先有 profiler 或 benchmark 數據，才能動效能相關的程式碼
"沒有測試，所以我知道不會有回歸"	無測試 = 無安全網——若無測試存在，重構前必須先加對應覆蓋；不得以「程式碼很簡單」替代測試保護

Verification

在完成重構並準備 commit 前，逐項確認（Gate = 交付前閘門；Verification = 自我完成確認）：

• git diff HEAD --stat 確認無預期外的行為變更檔案被修改
• 所有既有測試通過（無回歸）：dotnet test / npm test / pytest 退出碼為 0
• Build 成功且無新增 warning
• 無混入 feature 或結構變更（重構 commit 只含純行為保留的改動）
• 若涉及效能優化，量測數據已確認改善（量化）
• 若涉及程式碼刪除，已確認理解被刪除程式碼的原始目的（Chesterton's Fence）
• 若原本無測試，已在重構前加入對應覆蓋