菜单
Create a detailed refactor plan with tiny commits via user interview, then file it as a GitHub issue. Use when user wants to plan a refactor, create a refactoring RFC, or break a refactor into safe incremental steps.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Explore a target codebase and generate a complete course for it in the M:\Courses platform. Use when the user wants to create a course about another project, codebase, or tool — e.g. "build a course for M:\ai-dev-net", "create a course about this repo", "make a course on X".
Ultra-compressed communication mode. Cuts token usage ~75% by dropping filler, articles, and pleasantries while keeping full technical accuracy. Use when user says "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "use caveman", "less tokens", "be brief", or invokes /caveman.
Conducts professional and thorough code reviews for local changes or remote PRs. Checks correctness, project-specific conventions (repository/caching pattern, service contracts, MassTransit messaging, WPF patterns, NUnit tests), security, tests, and code quality. Use when asked to review code, review a PR, or check implementation against project standards.
Composes a well-structured commit message following the project's hybrid Conventional Commits format ([Scope] type: description). Inspects staged changes, infers the appropriate scope and type, and presents a draft for review. Use when asked to write a commit message, stage a commit, or check if a commit message follows project conventions.
Generate multiple radically different interface designs for a module using parallel sub-agents. Use when user wants to design an API, explore interface options, compare module shapes, or mentions "design it twice".
Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.
| name | request-refactor-plan |
| description | Create a detailed refactor plan with tiny commits via user interview, then file it as a GitHub issue. Use when user wants to plan a refactor, create a refactoring RFC, or break a refactor into safe incremental steps. |
This skill will be invoked when the user wants to create a refactor request. You should go through the steps below. You may skip steps if you don't consider them necessary.
Ask the user for a long, detailed description of the problem they want to solve and any potential ideas for solutions.
Explore the repo to verify their assertions and understand the current state of the codebase.
Ask whether they have considered other options, and present other options to them.
Interview the user about the implementation. Be extremely detailed and thorough.
Hammer out the exact scope of the implementation. Work out what you plan to change and what you plan not to change.
Look in the codebase to check for test coverage of this area of the codebase. If there is insufficient test coverage, ask the user what their plans for testing are.
Break the implementation into a plan of tiny commits. Remember Martin Fowler's advice to "make each refactoring step as small as possible, so that you can always see the program working."
Create a GitHub issue with the refactor plan. Use the following template for the issue description:
The problem that the developer is facing, from the developer's perspective.
The solution to the problem, from the developer's perspective.
A LONG, detailed implementation plan. Write the plan in plain English, breaking down the implementation into the tiniest commits possible. Each commit should leave the codebase in a working state.
A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include:
Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets. They may end up being outdated very quickly.
A list of testing decisions that were made. Include:
A description of the things that are out of scope for this refactor.
Any further notes about the refactor.
