x-ipe-task-based-code-refactor

name	x-ipe-task-based-code-refactor
description	Execute code refactoring end-to-end — analyze scope, sync docs, plan, execute, and validate. Single entry point for all refactoring work. Invokes x-ipe-tool-refactoring-analysis and x-ipe-tool-code-quality-sync as tool steps. Triggers on requests like "refactor code", "execute refactoring", "analyze for refactoring", "code quality assessment".

Task-Based Skill: Code Refactor

Purpose

Execute safe, end-to-end code refactoring with full traceability by:

1. Analyze scope and evaluate quality gaps (via x-ipe-tool-refactoring-analysis)
2. Sync documentation and tests with current code (via x-ipe-tool-code-quality-sync)
3. Plan refactoring following suggestions and principles
4. Execute refactoring incrementally with test validation
5. Validate quality improvement and update references

---

Important Notes

BLOCKING: Learn x-ipe-workflow-task-execution skill before executing this skill.

Note: If Agent does not have skill capability, go to .github/skills/ folder to learn skills. SKILL.md is the entry point.

This skill is the single entry point for all refactoring work. It orchestrates:

• x-ipe-tool-refactoring-analysis — scope expansion + quality evaluation
• x-ipe-tool-code-quality-sync — doc sync + test baseline

BLOCKING: If user requests "refactor", "analyze for refactoring", or "assess code quality" — this skill handles it. Do NOT redirect to separate analysis skills.

IMPORTANT: When process_preference.interaction_mode == "dao-represent-human-to-interact", NEVER stop to ask the human. Instead, call x-ipe-assistant-user-representative-Engineer to get the answer. The DAO skill acts as the human representative and will provide the guidance needed to continue.

---

Input Parameters

input:
  # Task attributes (from task board)
  task_id: "{TASK-XXX}"
  task_based_skill: "x-ipe-task-based-code-refactor"

  # Execution context (passed by x-ipe-workflow-task-execution)
  execution_mode: "free-mode | workflow-mode"
  workflow:
    name: "N/A"
    extra_context_reference:
      test-report: "path | N/A | auto-detect"
      specification: "path | N/A | auto-detect"

  # Task type attributes
  category: "feature-stage | standalone"
  next_task_based_skill:
    - skill: "x-ipe-task-based-feature-acceptance-test"
      condition: "Re-verify after refactoring"
    - skill: "x-ipe-task-based-feature-closing"
      condition: "Close feature if refactoring is the final step"
  process_preference:
    interaction_mode: "{from input process_preference.interaction_mode}"

  # Required inputs
  refactoring_scope:
    scope_level: "feature | custom"
    feature_id: "{FEATURE-XXX}"
    refactoring_purpose: "<why refactoring is needed>"
    files: []
    modules: []
    description: "<user's refactoring intent>"

  
   
   []

Input Initialization

<input_init>
  <field name="task_id" source="x-ipe+all+task-board-management (auto-generated)" />
  <field name="execution_mode" source="x-ipe-workflow-task-execution (from --workflow-mode@{name})" />
  <field name="workflow.name" source="x-ipe-workflow-task-execution (from --workflow-mode@{name})" />
  <field name="process_preference.interaction_mode" source="from caller (x-ipe-workflow-task-execution) or default 'interact-with-human'" />

  <field name="refactoring_scope.scope_level">
    <steps>
      1. IF caller provides scope_level → use provided value
      2. IF feature_id is provided → default to "feature"
      3. IF files[] is provided → default to "custom"
      4. ELSE → IF interaction_mode == "dao-represent-human-to-interact": ASK x-ipe-assistant-user-representative-Engineer for scope; ELSE: ASK human for scope
    </steps>
  </field>

  <field name="refactoring_scope.refactoring_purpose">
    <steps>
      1. IF caller provides → use provided value
      2. IF human describes intent → derive from description
      3. ELSE → IF interaction_mode == "dao-represent-human-to-interact": ASK x-ipe-assistant-user-representative-Engineer; ELSE: ASK human: "What is the purpose of this refactoring?"
    </steps>
  </>

  
    
      1. IF caller provides → use provided value
      2. ELSE → auto-detect from scope files (extensions, frameworks, project structure)
    
  

  
    
      1. IF caller provides → use provided value
      2. ELSE → auto-detect from package.json, pyproject.toml, go.mod, etc.
    
  

---

Definition of Ready

<definition_of_ready>
  <checkpoint required="true">
    <name>Refactoring scope provided</name>
    <verification>scope_level set; if feature: feature_id exists; if custom: files[] or description present</verification>
  </checkpoint>
  <checkpoint required="true">
    <name>Target code accessible</name>
    <verification>All listed files/modules can be read from filesystem</verification>
  </checkpoint>
  <checkpoint required="true">
    <name>Code compiles without errors</name>
    <verification>Run build/lint to confirm no pre-existing failures</verification>
  </checkpoint>
</definition_of_ready>

---

Execution Flow

Phase	Steps	Action	Gate
1. 博学之 — Study Broadly	1.1 Analyze Scope & Quality	Invoke x-ipe-tool-refactoring-analysis, self-validate findings	Analysis complete
2. 审问之 — Inquire Thoroughly	2.1 Sync Docs & Tests	Invoke x-ipe-tool-code-quality-sync	All aligned, coverage ≥ 80%
3. 慎思之 — Think Carefully	3.1 Generate Refactoring Plan	Design target structure, AI self-validates plan	Plan validated
4. 明辨之 — Discern Clearly	4.1 Execute Refactoring	Apply changes incrementally with tests	All tests pass
5. 笃行之 — Practice Earnestly	5.1 Validate & Complete	Verify improvement, update refs, apply tracing	DoD verified
继续执行	6.1 Decide Next Action	DAO-assisted next task decision	Next action decided
继续执行	6.2 Execute Next Action	Load skill, generate plan, execute	Execution started

BLOCKING: Phase 1 → 2 requires verification that analysis identified all issues. BLOCKING: Phase 3 → 4 requires confirmation that refactoring plan addresses identified issues (manual/stop_for_question: human confirms; auto: DAO confirms). BLOCKING: Phase 4 halts if any test fails (must fix or revert).

---

Execution Procedure

<procedure name="code-refactor">
  <execute_dor_checks_before_starting/>
  <schedule_dod_checks_with_sub_agent_before_starting/>

  <phase_1 name="博学之 — Study Broadly">
    <step_1_1>
      <name>Analyze Scope & Quality</name>
      <action>
        1. INVOKE x-ipe-tool-refactoring-analysis with:
           - operation: "full_analysis"
           - scope: {from input refactoring_scope}
           - quality_baseline_path: "x-ipe-docs/planning/project-quality-evaluation.md"
        2. RECEIVE output: refactoring_scope (expanded), code_quality_evaluated,
           refactoring_suggestion, refactoring_principle, report_path
        3. AI self-critique — validate analysis against objective criteria:
           a. Every item in refactoring_scope maps to a measurable quality gap
           b. No suggestions contradict each other (e.g., "extract class" + "inline class" on same target)
           c. Suggestions stay within the requested scope — no scope creep
           d. Quality scores are consistent (e.g., high complexity score but low smell count = investigate)
        4. Collect unresolved_questions[] — ONLY genuine ambiguities:
           - Scope conflicts: "You asked to refactor module X, but the analysis shows module Y is the root cause — include Y?"
           - Priority conflicts: "Both DRY and performance improvements are needed but they conflict — which to prioritize?"
        5. IF unresolved_questions is EMPTY → analysis validated, proceed
        6. IF unresolved_questions is NON-EMPTY:
           IF process_preference.interaction_mode == "dao-represent-human-to-interact":
             → Invoke x-ipe-assistant-user-representative-Engineer with specific questions list
           ELSE:
             → Present ONLY the specific questions to human
           → Incorporate answers, update analysis
      </action>
      <constraints>
        - MUST NOT ask broad "are these findings correct?" — only ask specific, bounded questions
        - IF self-critique passes with zero questions → skip human/DAO entirely
      </constraints>
      Validated analysis: refactoring_scope, code_quality_evaluated, suggestions, principles
    
  

  
    
      Sync Docs & Tests
      
        1. INVOKE x-ipe-tool-code-quality-sync with:
           - operation: "full_sync"
           - refactoring_scope: {from Step 1 output}
           - code_quality_evaluated: {from Step 1 output}
           - refactoring_suggestion: {pass-through from Step 1}
           - refactoring_principle: {pass-through from Step 1}
        2. RECEIVE output: updated code_quality_evaluated, validation report
        3. VERIFY all alignments "aligned" and coverage ≥ 80%
        4. IF any sync failed → present issues to human, decide to retry or proceed
      
      
        - BLOCKING: All alignment statuses must be "aligned" before proceeding
        - BLOCKING: Test coverage must be ≥ 80%
      
      Synced documentation, test baseline at 80%+
    
  

  
    
      Generate Refactoring Plan
      
        1. ANALYZE current structure (sizes, smells, violations) using analysis output
        2. DESIGN target structure applying principles:
           - SOLID: Extract classes/modules for SRP violations
           - DRY: Plan abstractions
           - KISS: Simplifications
           - YAGNI: Remove unused code
        3. CREATE refactoring_plan with phases ordered by goal priority
        4. AI self-critique — validate plan against objective criteria:
           a. Every identified issue from Step 1 has a corresponding plan item
           b. No plan item exceeds the approved refactoring_scope
           c. Plan respects refactoring_principle constraints (no new dependencies, etc.)
           d. Phases are ordered so earlier phases don't break later ones
           e. Each phase is independently testable — can verify before moving on
        5. Collect unresolved_questions[] — ONLY genuine trade-offs:
           - "Extracting this module improves DRY but adds a new dependency — acceptable?"
           - "Two valid refactoring orders exist: A→B is safer but slower, B→A is faster but riskier"
        6. IF unresolved_questions is EMPTY → plan validated, proceed
        7. IF unresolved_questions is NON-EMPTY:
           IF process_preference.interaction_mode == "dao-represent-human-to-interact":
             → Invoke x-ipe-assistant-user-representative-Engineer with specific trade-off questions
           ELSE:
             → Present ONLY the specific trade-offs to human
           → Incorporate answers, update plan
      
      
        - MUST NOT ask broad "does this plan look right?" — only ask specific trade-off questions
        - IF self-critique passes with zero questions → skip human/DAO entirely
      
      Validated refactoring_plan with phases and principle mappings
    
  

  
    
      Execute Refactoring
      
        0. TOOL SKILL ROUTING (config-filtered):
           a. DISCOVER: Scan .github/skills/x-ipe-tool-implementation-*/
           b. READ CONFIG: Read x-ipe-docs/config/tools.json → stages.validation.code_refactor
              - IF section missing/empty → config_active = false (all tools enabled)
              - ELSE → config_active = true (opt-in); force-enable general
           c. FILTER: IF config_active → only ENABLED tools participate
           d. SEMANTIC MATCH: Match tech_stack to enabled tool skill
           e. IF no match → fall back to inline refactoring (current behavior)
        FOR EACH phase in refactoring_plan:
          1. CREATE checkpoint: git commit -m "checkpoint: before phase {N}"
          2. GENERATE per-phase AAA scenarios describing target state
          3. INVOKE matched tool skill with operation: "refactor", AAA scenarios, source/test paths
             - Tool skill handles: code writing, test running, linting
             - feature_context optional; synthetic fallback: REFACTOR-{task_id}
          4. IF tool skill reports test failure:
             - Fix if import/reference issue
             - REVERT phase if behavior changed (orchestrator manages rollback)
             - Update test if change is legitimate
          5. COMMIT: git commit -m "refactor({scope}): {desc} [principle: {p}]"
      
      
        - BLOCKING: Must fix or revert if any test fails before continuing
        - CRITICAL: Structure changes only — preserve existing behavior
        - CRITICAL: Orchestrator manages checkpoints/commits — tool skills do NOT manage git
      
      Refactored code with incremental commits per phase
    
  

  
    
      Validate & Complete
      
        1. UPDATE technical designs (component list, paths, Design Change Log)
        2. UPDATE feature specifications (file references)
        3. UPDATE requirements (implementation notes)
        4. RUN final test suite (coverage maintained or improved)
        5. VALIDATE goals achieved from refactoring_suggestion
        6. CALCULATE quality improvements (before/after scores)
        7. CHECK tracing preserved on moved/renamed functions
        8. IF tracing infrastructure exists:
           - INVOKE x-ipe-tool-tracing-instrumentation for new files/functions
           - RE-RUN tests, UPDATE tracing counts
        9. IF execution_mode == "workflow-mode":
           Run workflow update script via bash (`python3 .github/skills/x-ipe-tool-x-ipe-app-interactor/scripts/workflow_update_action.py`):
             - workflow_name: {from context}
             - action: "code_refactor"
             - status: "done"
             - feature_id: {feature_id}
             - deliverables: {"refactor-report": "{path}"}
        10. Verify DoD checkpoints and resolve any open questions

            Response source (based on interaction_mode):
            IF process_preference.interaction_mode == "dao-represent-human-to-interact":
              → Resolve open questions via x-ipe-assistant-user-representative-Engineer
            ELSE (interact-with-human/dao-represent-human-to-interact-for-questions-in-skill):
              → Ask human for answers
        11. CREATE final commit
      
      
        - All tests passing
        - Quality score improved
        - All goals achieved or documented
        - Tracing preserved on existing code
      
      Refactoring summary with quality scores and tracing status
    
  

  
    
      Decide Next Action
      
        Collect the full context and task_completion_output from this skill execution.

        IF process_preference.interaction_mode == "dao-represent-human-to-interact":
          → Invoke x-ipe-assistant-user-representative-Engineer with:
            type: "routing"
            completed_skill_output: {full task_completion_output YAML from this skill}
            next_task_based_skill: "{from output}"
            context: "Skill completed. Study the context and full output to decide best next action."
          → DAO studies the complete context and decides the best next action
        ELSE (interact-with-human):
          → Present next task suggestion to human and wait for instruction
      
      
        - BLOCKING (manual): Human MUST confirm or redirect before proceeding
        - BLOCKING (auto): Proceed after DoD verification; auto-select next task via DAO
      
      Next action decided with execution context
    
    
      Execute Next Action
      
        Based on the decision from Step 6.1:
        1. Load the target task-based skill's SKILL.md
        2. Generate an execution plan from the skill's Execution Flow table
        3. Start execution from the skill's first phase/step
      
      
        - MUST load the skill before executing — do not skip skill loading
        - Execution follows the target skill's procedure, not this skill's
      
      Next task execution started
    
  

---

Output Result

task_completion_output:
  category: "feature-stage | standalone"
  status: completed | blocked
  next_task_based_skill:
    - skill: "x-ipe-task-based-feature-acceptance-test"
      condition: "Re-verify after refactoring"
    - skill: "x-ipe-task-based-feature-closing"
      condition: "Close feature if refactoring is the final step"
  process_preference:
    interaction_mode: "{from input process_preference.interaction_mode}"
  execution_mode: "{from input}"
  workflow:
    name: "{from input}"
  task_output_links:
    - "x-ipe-docs/refactoring/analysis-{context}.md"
    - "x-ipe-docs/refactoring/validation-{context}.md"
    - "{paths to refactored files}"

  # Feature context pass-through
  feature_id: "{from input refactoring_scope.feature_id or N/A}"

  refactoring_summary:
    files_modified: "<count>"
    files_created: "<count>"
    files_deleted: "<count>"
    principles_applied:
      - principle: "<name>"
        application_count: 
         
    
        
         
         

  
     
     
    
       
       
       
    
       
       
       

---

Definition of Done

CRITICAL: Use a sub-agent to validate DoD checkpoints independently.

<definition_of_done>
  <checkpoint required="true">
    <name>Analysis completed and approved</name>
    <verification>x-ipe-tool-refactoring-analysis output received and issues identified</verification>
  </checkpoint>
  <checkpoint required="true">
    <name>Documentation synced</name>
    <verification>x-ipe-tool-code-quality-sync completed, all alignments "aligned"</verification>
  </checkpoint>
  <checkpoint required="true">
    <name>All planned changes executed</name>
    <verification>Compare completed phases against refactoring_plan</verification>
  </checkpoint>
  <checkpoint required="true">
    <name>All tests passing</name>
    <verification>Run full test suite with zero failures</verification>
  
  
    Test coverage maintained or improved
    Compare coverage before/after, verify no regression
  
  
    Quality score improved
    Compare quality_score_before vs quality_score_after
  
  
    All references updated
    Tech designs, feature specs, requirements all reflect new structure
  
  
    All changes committed
    Clean git status with no uncommitted changes
  
  
    Tracing preserved and applied
    Existing decorators preserved; new public functions have @x_ipe_tracing
  

MANDATORY: After completing this skill, return to x-ipe-workflow-task-execution to continue the task execution flow.

---

Patterns & Anti-Patterns

Pattern	When	Then
Full Flow	"refactor this code"	Analysis → sync → plan → execute incrementally → validate → commit
Rollback	Tests fail after change	STOP, analyze, REVERT if behavior changed, fix if import issue
Tracing	Moving/renaming functions	Keep @x_ipe_tracing decorators, preserve redact=[], add to new public functions

Anti-Pattern	Why Bad	Do Instead
Big bang refactor	High risk, hard to debug	Small incremental changes
Skip analysis/sync	Missing baseline	Always run analysis + sync first
Skip test runs	Silent regressions	Test after EVERY change
Change behavior	Refactoring preserves semantics	Structure only, same behavior

---

References

File	Purpose
references/refactoring-techniques.md	Detailed procedures, input/output structures, tracing rules
references/examples.md	Concrete execution examples