refactor

name	refactor
description	Plan a refactor as an ordered, commit-grain Tasks Plan with structural acceptance criteria (test suite green at every step, no behaviour diff, named module/coupling invariants). Output is a feature-shaped plan that `/night` can execute end-to-end. Trigger when the user says "/refactor", asks "plan a refactor of X", "extract Y from Z", "split this module", "rename across the codebase", or describes a structural change with no user-visible feature behind it.
disable-model-invocation	false
argument-hint	<refactor-goal | path/to/refactor-spec.md | tracker-ref>

Refactor — plan a no-behaviour-change structural improvement

A refactor is not a feature and not a bug. Its acceptance criteria are structural ("module X no longer imports module Y", "the public API of foo() is unchanged but the implementation is now split across N files") and its safety net is "the test suite is green at every commit." The PM agent's normal feature-grooming flow doesn't fit because there's no user-visible behaviour to acceptance-test.

This skill produces a Tasks Plan whose tasks are commit-grain (each one keeps main shippable) and whose AC speak the refactor's actual concerns: imports, types, signatures, dependency direction, public surface, test coverage. The output feeds /night directly.

You are the planner — you may delegate exploration but do NOT write code, do NOT execute steps. Your output is the plan file plus a hand-off message.

$ARGUMENTS is one of:

• A free-form refactor goal ("extract auth.session into its own package", "replace ad-hoc retries with tenacity", "rename User.id to User.uid repo-wide").
• A path to a markdown spec.
• A tracker reference.

If empty, ask the user for one.

Read docs/PROCESS.md to confirm tracker mode and the canonical lifecycle this plan plugs into.

When to use

• Structural changes with no user-visible behaviour change: extractions, renames, dependency-inversion, layer-cleanup, dead-code removal, performance refactors that preserve semantics.
• Migration-shaped work where every step must keep main green (e.g., gradual library swap with parallel old/new paths).
• Anything you'd otherwise be tempted to ship as one giant PR.

When NOT to use

• A feature with new user-visible behaviour — use /night's built-in PM grooming instead.
• A bug fix — use /triage-issue, then /day or /night.
• A one-file rename you can finish in five minutes — just do it; don't ceremony.
• Refactors where the test suite is too thin to anchor "green at every step." First task in that case is expand test coverage, then come back here. The skill will surface this gap in Step 2.

Step 1 — Resolve and frame the refactor

Identify what to refactor from $ARGUMENTS (same resolution rules as /triage-issue's Step 1).

Capture three things explicitly — ask the user via AskUserQuestion if any are missing, one round of questions max:

1. Goal — one sentence, structural. ("Move all auth code out of core/ and into auth/.")
2. Definition of done — concrete, testable structural invariants. ("grep -r 'from core.auth' src/ returns nothing"; "auth/ has no imports from core/ except types"). At least 2.
3. Hard constraints — what must not change. ("Public API of core.session.Session unchanged"; "no DB schema changes"; "feature flag X stays toggleable throughout").

If the user can't answer (1)–(3), the refactor isn't ready to plan. Surface that and stop — the user does the thinking, not you.

Step 2 — Map the blast radius

Spawn 1 Explore agent (parallel calls if scope is large enough to need 2):

Agent(
  subagent_type="Explore",
  prompt="""Refactor scope: {goal from Step 1}.

  Map: (1) every file that will be touched (rough count + paths); (2) every module/package that imports the affected code (call sites — file:line); (3) every test that exercises the affected code; (4) any public API surface (functions / classes / endpoints / CLI commands) that callers outside the codebase might depend on; (5) the depth of the existing test coverage on the affected modules — coarse estimate (good / thin / none).

  Be exhaustive on (1)–(3); a missed import becomes a broken commit. Report as five sections."""
)

When the agent returns:

• Read the plan-critical files yourself. Don't trust a summary on the load-bearing modules.
• Test-coverage gate. If coverage is none or thin on the affected modules, surface this to the user as a prerequisite task ("expand test coverage to cover the current behaviour of core/auth/* before refactoring") and ask: "Add this as the first task, or stop?" Do not silently plan a refactor on top of weak tests.

Step 3 — Decompose into commit-grain tasks

Each task must satisfy three rules:

1. Reversible alone. Reverting just this commit leaves main green.
2. Tests green at the boundary. The full unit + integration suite passes after this task and after every prior task.
3. One coherent intention. "Move file X and update its imports" is one task. "Move file X, rename function Y, fix bug Z" is three.

Common refactor shapes and their canonical decomposition:

Refactor shape	Typical task sequence
Extract module	(1) copy code to new location with old still in place + re-export shim; (2) move call sites in batches by package; (3) delete shim + old file.
Rename across codebase	(1) introduce new name as alias of old; (2) migrate call sites in batches; (3) deprecate old name; (4) delete old name.
Library swap	(1) introduce new lib alongside old behind an internal facade; (2) migrate call sites; (3) remove old lib.
Layer cleanup (e.g., remove cycle)	(1) introduce the seam (new module / interface); (2) move responsibilities one batch at a time; (3) enforce direction with an architectural test.
Dead-code removal	(1) delete callers; (2) delete leaves; (3) re-run unused-detector. Each in its own task only if the ordering matters; often this is one task.

3–8 tasks is a healthy plan size. Fewer than 3 → it's too small for a Tasks Plan; do it as a single /day task. More than 8 → either decompose into multiple sequential refactors (file separate /refactor plans), or you're sneaking feature work in.

Step 4 — Write the Tasks Plan

Use this template. It mirrors the PM agent's feature-plan output so /night's Step 4 inner loop accepts it without re-grooming.

# Refactor: {one-line goal}

**Type:** refactor
**Definition of done:**
- {invariant 1}
- {invariant 2}
- ...

**Hard constraints (must not change):**
- {constraint 1}
- ...

**Test-suite anchor:** `make pre-commit && make unit-tests && make integration-tests`. Every task ends with this command green.

## Tasks

### 1. {one-line task title}

**Scope:** {1–2 sentences on what this commit does and only what it does.}

**Files touched (expected):** `path/a.py`, `path/b.py`, ...

**Acceptance criteria:**
- [ ] {Structural assertion. e.g. `grep -r 'from core.auth' src/auth/ | wc -l` is 0.}
- [ ] {Behavioural invariant. e.g. Public API of `Session.login()` unchanged — verified by existing tests at `tests/auth/test_session.py`.}
- [ ] Test suite anchor green.
- [ ] No new unit tests required (this is a refactor) — but if you find a coverage gap that blocks the move, add the test before doing the move and call that out in the SWE log.

**Out of scope:**
- {explicit list — adjacent things that look related but belong to other tasks.}

### 2. ...

(Repeat for each task.)

## Rollback story

If task N goes sideways and the team needs to ship before it's resolved, revert commits {N..} only. Tasks {1..N-1} are independently shippable by construction.

## Notes for the SWE

- This is a refactor — **add no behaviour, fix no bugs**, even if you spot one. File a [`/triage-issue`](../triage-issue/SKILL.md) for any bug found mid-refactor; do not let it ride along.
- If a task's AC turns out to be wrong (e.g., a hidden import the planner missed), update the plan via the orchestrator before adapting code — drift between plan and reality is the source of "refactor went off the rails" stories.

Step 5 — File the plan

Where it lands depends on tracker mode (per docs/PROCESS.md).

File mode

tracker/feature-refactor-<slug>-plan.md

Plus one tracker/NNN-<refactor-slug>-task-K.groomed.md per task (matches what /night's Step 4 expects to find). Use sequential numbering for the per-task IDs.

gh mode

Open one parent issue (label refactor,plan) with the full plan in the body, then one issue per task linked back to the parent (label refactor,task). Capture all numbers for the hand-off message.

Step 6 — Hand-off

Single markdown block:

## Refactor plan ready — {goal}

**Plan:** {tracker path or parent issue URL}
**Tasks ({N}):**
1. {NNN-slug or #N} — {title}
2. ...

**Definition of done:** {bulleted DoD from the plan}

### Recommended next step

`/night {plan-ref}` — the inner loop runs each task, the Tester gate enforces "tests green at every step", and the PM acceptance review verifies the structural DoD. The two human gates (plan approval and merge) still apply.

If the refactor is small enough (≤ 2 tasks) and you'd rather supervise:

`/day {first-task-ref}` then `/day {next-task-ref}` — manual, one task at a time.

### Pre-flight checklist (before /night)

- [ ] Test-suite anchor (`make pre-commit && make unit-tests && make integration-tests`) is green on `main` *right now*. Do not start a refactor on a red base.
- [ ] No in-flight feature branches conflict with the affected files (avoidable merge churn).
- [ ] If the refactor touches the public API, the deprecation / migration story for downstream callers is captured in the plan or in an ADR ([`adr.md`](../scaffold/specs/adr.md)).

Notes on shape

• Refactor ≠ rewrite. A rewrite is a different conversation (it's a feature with the user-visible behaviour being "the new system, but the same"). Don't smuggle a rewrite in here.
• No new behaviour, ever. The refactor's whole value proposition is "tests still pass, semantics unchanged." Adding behaviour mid-refactor destroys the anchor and makes rollback uncertain.
• Bugs spotted mid-flight get triaged separately. This is the same hard rule as in the SWE agent's role definition — refactor PRs that "also fix a bug" hide the bug fix in noise and undermine review.
• The plan is the contract. The Tester verifies against it; the PM acceptance review verifies the DoD; the PR reviewer reads it to know what's in scope. Sloppy plans propagate.
• Coverage gaps get fixed first. Refactor on weak tests = silent regressions. Step 2's coverage gate is load-bearing — don't skip it because the user is impatient.
• 3–8 tasks. Outside that band, redesign — either you're under-decomposing (then per-task PRs become un-reviewable) or you're over-decomposing (then ceremony eats the value).