rework-comments

name

rework-comments

description

Audit and rework code comments across AltTab so they help an AI agent instead of misleading it. Triages every comment by whether its claim is verifiable and non-derivable, deletes process narration and repeated lessons, shrinks history to test names, and flags comments that have drifted out of sync with the code. Use for a whole-codebase pass, for one file or folder that feels over-commented, after a big refactor, or whenever an agent has been misled by a comment.

/rework-comments

Rework comments so the ones that survive are the ones an agent can act on. Runs on the whole of src/, or on a path you pass as an argument.

Why this exists (the evidence)

Measured on recent models, including Claude Code on Sonnet 4.6:

• Wrong beats absent, by a lot. Misleading comments cost ~13.5pp on code-reasoning benchmarks; removing comments costs 2.4–8.2pp (CodeCrash). A stale comment is 2–6x more expensive than no comment. It also inflates reasoning tokens 2–3x.
• Volume is not the lever. 660 Claude Code trials on minimal-pair repos found no pass-rate difference from cleanliness, and a dedicated comment-volume ablation showed comment lines are not what drives agent token cost or file re-reads (Trivedi & Schmitt, SonarSource 2026).
• Short and single-intent beats long and mixed. Across 80k translations, ~5-word descriptive comments outperformed 19-word author comments that mixed several intents (study).
• Repetition and conflict cost attention. Anthropic cut 80%+ of Claude Code's system prompt with no eval loss, and names redundancy across sources and conflicting statements as the specific costs (Claude 5 context engineering).

So: do not cut on line count. Cut on drift surface. The goal is fewer claims that can go stale, not fewer characters. A correct, non-obvious comment stays no matter how long it is.

The triage rule

For each comment, ask two questions in order.

1. Can a reader verify this claim from the code in front of them?

• No, and it is a fact about the outside world (macOS / CGS / SkyLight / AppKit behaviour, an OS timing quirk, a measured capture, an API contract) → KEEP. This is the irreplaceable category. It cannot be re-derived without reproducing the bug.
• No, and it is a fact about our own history or process ("this used to be X", "we tried Y and reverted", "this comment used to say", "the lesson written three times in this file") → CUT. An agent cannot act on it, and it reads as a live claim about current code.
• Yes, it restates what the code says → CUT, unless it names a consequence the code doesn't show.

2. What breaks if it goes?

• "Someone re-simplifies this and reintroduces a bug" → KEEP, but shrink to the guardrail. One sentence for the constraint, plus the test name that enforces it. The test is what actually holds the line; the prose only needs to point at it.
• "Nothing" → CUT.

Everything else is a judgment call, and the default on a judgment call is keep. A wrongly-deleted true comment costs more than a kept mediocre one.

Categories, in priority order

Work these in order. The first is the one that pays.

P1 — Drifted comments (the only category that hurts correctness). A comment whose claim contradicts the code beside it, names a symbol that no longer exists, describes a branch that moved, or states an ordering the code no longer has. Fix the comment, or delete it if the fact is gone. Never fix by changing the code to match the comment — report that as a possible bug instead and leave both alone.

P2 — Repeated lessons. The same rule stated in more than one place in a file (or across sibling files). Keep the clearest statement at the highest-scope declaration (the enum/struct/file header), delete the restatements. If a restatement carries a detail the canonical one lacks, move the detail up rather than keeping both.

P3 — Process narration and meta-commentary. Abandoned approaches, "this was tried and reverted", commentary about what a previous version of the comment said, apologies, self-aware asides about the comment itself. If a reverted approach is genuinely load-bearing (someone will obviously retry it), compress to one clause: // tried pairing with newlyDiscovered; breaks testX.

P4 — Restatement of the code. // increment the counter above count += 1. Delete outright. Per AGENTS.md, if a block needs a comment to be followable, prefer splitting it into a named sub-method.

P5 — Structurally broken comments. Bullet lists interrupted mid-flow by a paragraph so the trailing bullets appear to belong to a different list; comments whose indentation detached them from the statement they explain; doc comments that drifted above the wrong declaration. Partial reads of these give wrong answers, so they behave like P1.

What always survives

Do not touch these, even in a file that is 2:1 comments to code:

• Invariants and preconditions stated once at the top of a type (e.g. the fullscreen Space invariant in TabGroupResolver.swift).
• Non-derivable OS/API behaviour, especially with measured evidence (the OS creates a new tab at 0×0 and sizes it ~640ms later).
• Private-API notes, #-issue references, and undocumented-behaviour warnings.
• Doc comments on kernel entry points that the matching *Specs.md refers to.
• The reason a guard exists, when the guard looks removable without it.
• Licence headers, // MARK: structure, swiftlint directives.

Workflow

1. Scope and baseline. Default to src/; use the path argument if given.

   find src -name '*.swift' -not -path '*_test-support*' | wc -l
   

   Measure comment-to-code ratio per file and repo-wide:

   for f in $(find src -name '*.swift' -not -path '*_test-support*'); do
     awk -v F="$f" '{ if ($0 ~ /^[[:space:]]*(\/\/|\/\*|\*)/) c++; else if ($0 !~ /^[[:space:]]*$/) k++ }
       END { if (k > 0) printf "%.2f %d %d %s\n", c/k, c, k, F }' "$f"
   done | sort -rn | head -40
   

   Report the repo baseline ratio and the outliers. The ratio picks reading order, it is not a target. A 3:1 file of measured OS facts is fine; a 0.4:1 file of stale restatement is not.

2. Read whole files, never grep for comments in isolation. Every triage question is about the comment against its code. A comment excerpt cannot be judged.

3. Triage per file. Walk the comments top to bottom, tag each P1–P5 or KEEP. For P1, verify the drift by reading the code the comment describes — if you cannot confirm it drifted, it stays.

4. Apply. Edit comments only. One file at a time. On a whole-codebase run, checkpoint progress to .claude/scratch/rework-comments-progress.md (file · status · findings) after each file, so an interrupted run resumes without re-reading.

5. Verify nothing but comments changed. This is the safety property of the whole skill:

   git diff -U0 -- '*.swift' | grep -E '^[+-]' | grep -vE '^(\+\+\+|---)' \
     | grep -vE '^[+-][[:space:]]*(//|/\*|\*|\*/)' | grep -vE '^[+-][[:space:]]*$'
   

   This must print nothing. If it prints a line, you changed code — revert that hunk. The one false positive: editing a trailing comment (let x = 2 // note) rewrites a code line, so it shows up here. Confirm by eye that the code before the // is byte-identical, then move on.

6. Build. Copy the commands from ai/build.sh and run them. Comment-only edits can still break a build (an unterminated block comment, a doc comment detached from its declaration).

7. Cross-check the specs. If you touched a kernel's doc comments, run /audit-specs-tests for the affected triads — the *Specs.md may quote the prose you changed.

Reporting

• Repo baseline ratio, and a table of the files you reworked: path · before/after comment lines · categories applied.
• P1 findings listed separately and first, each with file:line, the claim, and what the code actually does. These are the ones the user most needs to see, and the ones most likely to indicate a real bug rather than a doc error.
• Anything you deliberately kept that looks over-commented, with the one-line reason (usually: measured OS behaviour).
• Any place where the comment and the code disagreed and the comment looked right — a suspected bug, left untouched, for the user to decide.
• If a file is already in good shape, say so and move on. Do not manufacture edits to show effort.