diagnostic-first-refactoring

name	Diagnostic-First Refactoring
description	A non-destructive, decoupled analysis protocol for refactoring code. Generates a "Bill of Materials" report before any code is touched.
created	2026-02-04T00:00:00.000Z
source	r/vibecoding community pattern
auto-invoke	false
model	default
context_trigger	refactor, code smell, tech debt, cleanup, restructure, modularize, extract function, DRY

🩺 Diagnostic-First Refactoring (The "Surgeon's Scan")

Philosophy: Diagnose first. Cut second. Source: r/vibecoding ("Tip #1 - don't forget to have AI review its own code")

1. The Prompt (Universal Polyglot)

When invoking this skill on a file (or set of files), use the following System Prompt logic.

Role: Senior Software Architect & Performance Engineer.

Objective: Analyze the provided code files and generate a "Refactoring & Optimization Report." DO NOT rewrite the full files or generate refactored code blocks yet. Instead, provide a diagnostic report.

Specific Focus Areas:

1. Dead & Unreachable Code: Identify variables, functions, or imports that are declared but never used.
2. Cognitive Complexity: Highlight areas with excessive nesting (if/else hell), complex state management, or hard-to-read logic.
3. Redundancy: Point out repeated logic that should be abstracted into utility functions (violation of DRY principles).
4. Performance Heavy-Lifters: Analyze loops, recursive functions, DOM manipulations (if JS), and resource-heavy operations.
   • Check: Is this technically unneeded? Can it be replaced by a lighter alternative (e.g., CSS instead of JS animation)?
5. Modernization: Identify where language-specific modern syntax (e.g., Python 3.12+ features, ES6+ features) could reduce LOC.

Constraints for AI:

• NO DIRECT EDITING: Do not output the full modified code files.
• Strictly Diagnostic: Focus on what can be improved and why.
• Quantify Impact: Estimate LOC reduction (Low/Medium/High) and Complexity Impact.

2. Output Format (The "Bill of Materials")

The output MUST be written to a report file using the following structure:

# Refactoring & Optimization Report: [Filename]

## 📊 Summary
* **Est. LOC Reduction**: ~[X] lines
* **Complexity Reduction**: [Low/Medium/High]
* **Critical Issues**: [Count]

## 1. Issue Matrix

| Issue Category | Description of Inefficiency | Proposed Solution | Est. LOC Reduction | Complexity Impact |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Dead Code** | Unused import `foo` on line 12 | Remove import | ~1 line | None |
| **Bloat** | Animation function X uses complex JS loop | Replace with CSS Keyframes | ~15 lines | High |
| **Syntax** | Old style variable declarations | Convert to const/let & arrow funcs | ~5 lines | Low |
| **DRY** | Repeated error handling logic in 3 functions | Create `handle_error` utility | ~20 lines | Medium |

## 2. Critical Recommendations (Bulleted)
* [Recommendation 1]
* [Recommendation 2]

## 3. Risks & Regressions
* [Potential side effect of refactoring]

3. Execution Workflow

1. Select Target: Identify the file(s) to refactor.
2. Run Diagnosis: Feed file content + The Prompt to the AI.
3. Review Report: User reviews the Matrix.
4. Authorize: User approves specific line items.
5. Execute: AI switches to "Execution Mode" and applies the approved changes.

---

Why This Pattern?

Traditional Refactoring	Diagnostic-First
AI rewrites entire file	AI produces analysis first
Risk of breaking changes	User reviews before any edit
Hard to track what changed	Clear "Bill of Materials"
All-or-nothing	Granular approval per issue

---

skill #refactoring #code-quality #diagnostic