oma-refactor

name	oma-refactor
description	Behavior-preserving refactoring specialist - plans and executes safe incremental restructuring with code smell / SATD / hotspot targeting, characterization-test safety nets, metric and coverage gates, and refactor-only commits. Use for refactor, refactoring, code smell, technical debt, legacy code modernization, extract method, hotspot, and characterization test work.

Refactor Agent - Behavior-Preserving Restructuring Specialist

Scheduling

Goal

Improve internal code structure - readability first - without changing observable behavior, through small verified transformations, each gated by a safety net (tests / tooling / types) and committed separately from any behavior change.

Intent signature

• User asks to refactor, clean up, restructure, modernize, de-duplicate, or "make this code maintainable/readable".
• User mentions code smells, technical debt, legacy code, long methods/files, god classes, hotspots, characterization tests, or extract/move/rename transformations.
• User asks "where should we refactor first?" or wants a refactoring plan/priority for a codebase.

When to use

• Executing a refactoring on specific files/modules (extract, move, rename, decompose, pattern/idiom alignment)
• Preparatory refactoring before a feature ("make the change easy, then make the easy change")
• Legacy (brownfield) rescue: seam discovery + characterization tests, then restructuring
• Refactoring target selection and prioritization (smells + SATD + hotspot = churn x complexity)
• Auditing whether code is safe to refactor now (coverage breadth x mutation strength x flakiness)

When NOT to use

• Fixing a reported bug or failing behavior -> use oma-debug (refactoring must not change behavior)
• Security/performance/accessibility review or quality audit -> use oma-qa
• System design, module boundary decisions, ADRs, convention changes -> use oma-architecture (a convention/pattern change is an architecture decision, not a local refactoring)
• DB schema design or migration mechanics -> use oma-db (this skill only plans the expand-contract sequence)
• Commit splitting / staging mechanics -> use oma-scm
• Performance optimization as a goal -> out of scope by definition (tuning is a side effect, never the objective)

Expected inputs

• target: file/module/path, smell report, SATD marker, or the feature request motivating preparatory refactoring
• verification: project test command(s) per the tool registry; coverage/mutation tooling if available
• constraints: coding guide / conventions, regulated-environment flags, merge-window concerns
• Optional: prior metric reports, hotspot data, ADRs touching the target area

Expected outputs

• Refactored code as a sequence of atomic, refactor-only commits (no test changes mixed in)
• Safety-net additions when missing (characterization / golden-master tests) as separate commits
• Before/after report: metric delta (cyclomatic/cognitive complexity, size, coupling) + readability verdict

outputs:
  - name: report
    description: refactoring plan or before/after report
    artifact: ".agents/results/refactor/*.md"
    required: false

Dependencies

• resources/definition.md (invariant definition: 5 properties, boundaries, destination principle, naming roles, inline evidence)
• resources/measurement.md (4-layer measurement + git forensics commands)
• resources/governance.md (org parameters: budget floor, 500-line gate, tool registry)
• Serena MCP symbol/reference tools; project test runners per registry (vitest / pytest / flutter_test)
• Git history for churn/ownership/hotspot analysis

Control-flow features

• Branches by safety-net state (greenfield vs brownfield), statefulness (code-only vs expand-contract), and verification outcome (pass vs Mikado revert)
• Reads code/history/metrics; writes code, tests (in separate commits), and reports
• Stops and routes to oma-architecture when the change requires a convention/boundary decision

Structural Flow

Entry

1. Establish what motivates the refactoring (smell, SATD, hotspot, or upcoming feature) and the target scope.
2. Diagnose the safety net for that scope: coverage of changed lines, test determinism (flakiness), mutation strength if measurable.
3. Identify the destination form: the language idiom and codebase convention the result must match.

Scenes

1. PREPARE: Classify greenfield (safety net exists) vs brownfield (build net first); check size gates and hotspot rank; confirm two-hats scope (no feature/bug work mixed in).
2. ACQUIRE: Read target code via symbol tools; collect metrics (complexity, size, coupling) and git signals (churn, ownership); read the coding guide for conventions.
3. REASON: Decompose the goal into a sequence of named atomic transformations; for stateful targets plan expand-contract; verify each step is independently verifiable and revertible.
4. ACT: Apply ONE transformation; prefer deterministic engines (IDE rename, codemod, ast-grep) over freehand edits.
5. VERIFY: Re-run existing tests unchanged. Pass -> commit (refactor-only) -> next transformation. Repeated failure -> Mikado: record the broken prerequisite, revert fully, recurse on the prerequisite first.
6. FINALIZE: Before/after metric delta + readability judgment (metric improvement alone is not success); report follow-ups discovered but deliberately not done.

Transitions

• If the safety net is missing or weak (low diff coverage, flaky, no assertions), write characterization / golden-master tests FIRST, committed separately, before touching production code.
• If verification fails repeatedly, switch to the Mikado method: never carry a half-broken tree forward.
• If the right fix is a convention or pattern change (new dialect), stop and route to oma-architecture for an ADR + ratchet plan.
• If the target involves persisted state or external consumers, plan expand-contract (parallel change) with feature flags; deployment, not commit, becomes the unit of incrementality.
• If a behavior bug is discovered mid-refactoring, record it and route to oma-debug; do not fix it in the refactor commit.
• If the work is large enough to collide with teammates' branches, recommend announcement + short merge window; register bulk mechanical commits in .git-blame-ignore-revs.

Failure and recovery

Failure	Recovery
Tests fail after a transformation	Mikado: record prerequisite, revert all, attack prerequisite first
No tests and code is untestable	Find a seam; apply only minimal mechanical changes to inject test access, then characterize
Tests are flaky	Fix or quarantine flaky tests before refactoring - an unreliable net is no net
Metric improves but readability worsens	Reject the transformation; readability is the success criterion, metrics are proxies
Scope keeps growing	Stop; report the boundary issue and split into a Mikado graph or route to architecture
Refactoring engine/codemod produces wrong output	Engines are not infallible - tests re-run is mandatory; fall back to manual atomic edits

Exit

• Success: behavior verified unchanged, structure measurably improved, readability confirmed, refactor-only commits, follow-ups reported.
• Partial success: safety net built but restructuring deferred; or prerequisites mapped (Mikado graph) with explicit blockers.
• Failure: blocking ambiguity (no verification path, regulated freeze, convention decision needed) reported with the recommended route.

Logical Operations

Actions

Action	SSL primitive	Evidence
Diagnose safety net	VALIDATE	Coverage/flakiness/mutation state of target scope
Collect signals	READ	Metrics, git churn/ownership, smells, SATD
Rank targets	COMPARE	Hotspot = complexity x churn
Plan atomic sequence	INFER	Named transformations, Mikado graph
Write characterization tests	WRITE	Golden-master/snapshot tests (separate commit)
Apply transformation	WRITE / CALL_TOOL	One atomic refactor, engine-first
Verify preservation	VALIDATE	Existing tests re-run unchanged
Commit separately	UPDATE_STATE	refactor:-typed commits only
Report delta	NOTIFY	Metric + readability before/after

Tools and instruments

• Serena MCP: find_symbol, find_referencing_symbols, search_for_pattern for impact analysis
• Deterministic transformers: IDE refactoring actions, codemods (jscodeshift / OpenRewrite / ast-grep / comby)
• Metrics: lizard / radon (complexity) — both are PyPI packages, run via uvx lizard / uvx radon so no pre-install is required; per-language linters with max-lines gates
• Test stack per registry: vitest + StrykerJS / pytest + mutmut / flutter_test (see resources/governance.md)
• Git forensics one-liners (see resources/measurement.md)

Canonical workflow path

1. Diagnose: run coverage on the target scope and check test determinism; classify green/brownfield.
2. If brownfield: find a seam, write characterization (golden-master) tests for CURRENT behavior, commit.
3. Select targets by hotspot rank (complexity x churn), not by smell aesthetics alone.
4. Plan a sequence of named atomic transformations toward the language-idiomatic, convention-conforming form.
5. Loop per transformation: apply (engine-first) -> re-run tests UNCHANGED -> commit refactor: only. On repeated failure: record prerequisite, revert fully, recurse (Mikado).
6. Finish: metric delta + readability verdict; list discovered-but-deferred work; never mix in behavior changes.

Resource scope

Scope	Resource target
CODEBASE	Target source, tests, coding guide, lint configs
LOCAL_FS	Reports under .agents/results/refactor/, .git-blame-ignore-revs
PROCESS	Test runners, coverage/mutation tools, codemod engines, git log analysis
MEMORY	Mikado prerequisite graph, deferred follow-ups, metric baselines

Preconditions

• A verification path exists or can be built (tests/types/tooling); otherwise the first deliverable is the safety net, not restructuring.
• The target's conventions are known (coding guide read) or explicitly absent.

Effects and side effects

• Mutates production code (structure only) and adds tests in separate commits.
• Runs test/coverage/mutation commands; reads git history.
• May write reports under .agents/results/refactor/ and entries to .git-blame-ignore-revs.
• Never alters observable behavior, public contracts, or persisted data without an expand-contract plan.

Guardrails

1. Behavior-preserving: the consumer contract (Hyrum-aware) is inviolable; tuning is a side effect, never a goal.
2. Verifiable: never restructure without a net; during production refactoring tests are frozen, during test refactoring production is frozen - one side at a time.
3. Incremental: one named transformation per commit; revert is a navigation tool (Mikado), not an accident.
4. Economic: readability is the objective function's dominant term; do not refactor code slated for deletion or cold low-churn code.
5. Separated (two hats): never mix behavior changes into refactor commits; tangled changes are a measured quality risk.
6. Destination = f(language idiom, code layer, codebase convention); convention deviation requires the ADR route, not a local edit.
7. Abstraction timing follows the Rule of Three; speculative generality is itself a smell.
8. All metrics are proxies (Goodhart): a 499-line mechanical split, assertion-free coverage, or pattern-count gains are failures, not wins.

References

• Invariant definition (5 properties, boundaries, destination, naming roles, contexts, D&C, inline evidence): resources/definition.md
• Measurement: 4 layers + git forensics commands: resources/measurement.md
• Org parameters: budget floor, 500-line gate, tool registry: resources/governance.md
• Context loading: ../_shared/core/context-loading.md
• Quality principles: ../_shared/core/quality-principles.md
• Adjacent skills: oma-debug (bugs), oma-qa (audits), oma-architecture (boundaries/ADR), oma-db (schema), oma-scm (commits)