| argument-hint | [path] [--include-generated] |
| coordination | exempt |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| name | large-file-refactor |
| user-invocable | true |
| description | Discover large source-file refactor candidates and propose cohesion- and risk-driven split plans using available semantic tooling. |
Large File Refactor
This skill is coordination-exempt: skip the ai-coord gate for its declared work.
If these instructions are already present in the conversation from a slash or dollar invocation, follow them directly;
do not invoke this skill again through a skill tool.
Use LOC thresholds to discover candidates, then decide whether a split is justified by cohesion, coupling, ownership,
and change risk. Test files use a relaxed 2000 LOC discovery threshold.
Arguments
path: Optional file or directory to scan. Default: current working directory.--include-generated: Include generated, vendored, dependency, and build-output paths that are skipped by default.
Workflow
-
Resolve the skill directory, then run the helper from that directory:
uv run scripts/large-file-refactor.py "$ARGUMENTS"
-
If no arguments were provided, run the default scan:
uv run scripts/large-file-refactor.py
-
Preserve the helper's Markdown table as the exhaustive report. Do not omit matching rows, even when the refactor plan
only covers a subset.
-
If the helper reports no threshold matches, stop after the report. A match is a candidate, not proof that the file
should be split.
-
Draft a refactor plan for the 3 largest files only, unless the user explicitly requested another count.
-
For each candidate, rank split value by mixed responsibilities, change frequency/risk, coupling, and testability. Use
whichever semantic symbol/reference tooling is available; prefer Serena when installed:
- Inspect symbol overviews, references, imports, and relevant history.
- Use the evidence to choose extraction boundaries, target module names, migration order, and test coverage.
-
Do not implement the refactor unless the user separately asks for execution.
Refactor Plan Format
For each selected file, include:
- Current role: the file's apparent responsibility and why line count is a symptom.
- Semantic pass: the exact symbol/reference/history inspection to run before moving code.
- Split proposal: 2-5 target modules or files with responsibilities.
- Migration order: small, reviewable steps that preserve public behavior.
- Verification: narrow tests, type checks, builds, or smoke checks that prove the split.
Lead each plan with one explicit verdict: ### ✂ Split justified, ### 🧱 Keep intact, or
### ⚠️ Generated — change the generator. Use a compact evidence table for repeated criteria. When proposing a split,
show the source and target modules as a tree only when it clarifies ownership.
If a selected file is generated or vendored because --include-generated was used, plan against the generator, schema,
or upstream source instead of hand-splitting generated output.
Guard Rails
- Treat the table as source of truth for size ranking only; rank refactor priority separately.
- Keep the plan cohesive; do not split solely to reduce line count.
- Prefer existing project module boundaries and naming conventions.
- Call out when the helper used its portable LOC estimate instead of
tokei.
Completion
Complete with the exhaustive threshold report plus evidence-ranked plans only for candidates whose cohesion or change
risk justifies a split. Lead with ### 🔎 Large-file scan — <candidate count>, state when a large file should remain
intact and why, and surface the portable-LOC fallback as ⚠️ Approximate counts when used. Keep the helper's exhaustive
table, paths, LOC values, and commands exact and undecorated.
