| name | refactoring-opportunities |
| description | Analyze a codebase for refactoring opportunities that improve maintainability, readability, and reduce technical debt, then produce a prioritized plan. Use when asked to "find refactoring opportunities", "identify code smells", "reduce tech debt", or "suggest refactors". Technology-agnostic. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| metadata | {"author":"olivomarco","version":"1.0.0","argument-hint":"<path-or-area-to-analyze>"} |
Refactoring Opportunities Analysis
Mission
Analyze the codebase and identify concrete refactoring opportunities that improve maintainability, readability, performance, and reduce technical debt. Produce a prioritized plan. Report findings; do not refactor unless explicitly asked.
Scope & Preconditions
- If the user names an area, scope there; otherwise analyze the primary source directories.
- Infer the stack and respect the project's existing architecture and conventions.
- Do not propose changes that break documented invariants or public APIs without flagging the breakage.
Workflow
- Scan for code smells — Duplicated logic, overly long files/functions, deep nesting, large "god" modules/components, long parameter lists, and high cyclomatic complexity.
- Detect abstraction gaps — Repeated patterns across modules that could become a shared utility, helper, or base abstraction.
- Evaluate structure — Modules mixing concerns (I/O + business logic + presentation), missing separation of layers, and tight coupling that could be decoupled.
- Assess naming & readability — Misleading or inconsistent names, dead branches, commented-out code, and unclear control flow.
- Assess type/contract safety — Loose or missing types, unchecked casts, untyped boundaries, and missing return/error contracts (adapt to the language).
- Performance smells — Obvious inefficiencies: N+1 queries, repeated expensive work without memoization/caching, unnecessary re-computation or re-rendering, blocking I/O on hot paths.
- Review dependency usage — Overlapping libraries serving the same purpose, or heavy dependencies used trivially.
Output Expectations
Produce a Markdown report with:
Summary
One-paragraph overview of codebase health and top findings.
Findings
A numbered list, each with:
- Location: file path and line range
- Smell/Issue: concise description
- Why it matters: maintainability/performance/readability impact
- Impact: Low / Medium / High
- Suggested refactor: brief description of the change
- Risk: Low / Medium / High (chance of regression)
Prioritized Plan
| Priority | Finding # | Effort (S/M/L) | Impact | Risk | Description |
|---|
Quick Wins
Low-effort, low-risk, high-value refactors that can be done immediately.
Quality Assurance
- Every finding must reference a specific file and location.
- Suggestions must be compatible with the project's actual framework and conventions.
- Do not propose new abstractions for one-time use.
- Call out any refactor that would change public behavior or APIs.
- Do not modify code unless explicitly asked. This skill reports by default.
