lmiranda
7c8a20c804
Refactored commands to extract reusable skills following the Commands → Skills separation pattern. Each command is now <50 lines and references skill files for detailed knowledge. Plugins refactored: - claude-config-maintainer: 5 commands → 7 skills - code-sentinel: 3 commands → 2 skills - contract-validator: 5 commands → 6 skills - data-platform: 10 commands → 6 skills - doc-guardian: 5 commands → 6 skills (replaced nested dir) - git-flow: 8 commands → 7 skills Skills contain: workflows, validation rules, conventions, reference data, tool documentation Commands now contain: YAML frontmatter, agent assignment, skills list, brief workflow steps, parameters Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
100 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
100 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
description: Workflow for previewing changes safely before applying them
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Dry Run Workflow Skill
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
Dry run mode analyzes code and shows proposed changes without modifying files. Essential for reviewing impact before committing to changes.
|
|
|
|
## Opportunity Scoring
|
|
|
|
Rate each refactoring opportunity on three dimensions:
|
|
|
|
### Impact Score (1-5)
|
|
| Score | Meaning | Example |
|
|
|-------|---------|---------|
|
|
| 5 | Major improvement | Cyclomatic complexity 15 -> 3 |
|
|
| 4 | Significant improvement | Function 50 lines -> 15 lines |
|
|
| 3 | Moderate improvement | Better naming, clearer structure |
|
|
| 2 | Minor improvement | Code style modernization |
|
|
| 1 | Cosmetic only | Formatting changes |
|
|
|
|
### Risk Score (1-5)
|
|
| Score | Meaning | Example |
|
|
|-------|---------|---------|
|
|
| 5 | Very high risk | Changes to core business logic |
|
|
| 4 | High risk | Modifies shared utilities |
|
|
| 3 | Moderate risk | Changes function signatures |
|
|
| 2 | Low risk | Internal implementation only |
|
|
| 1 | Minimal risk | Pure functions, no side effects |
|
|
|
|
### Effort Score (1-5)
|
|
| Score | Meaning | Example |
|
|
|-------|---------|---------|
|
|
| 5 | Major effort | Requires architecture changes |
|
|
| 4 | Significant effort | Many files affected |
|
|
| 3 | Moderate effort | Multiple related changes |
|
|
| 2 | Low effort | Single file, clear scope |
|
|
| 1 | Trivial | Automated transformation |
|
|
|
|
## Priority Calculation
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Priority = (Impact * 2) - Risk - (Effort * 0.5)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
| Priority Range | Recommendation |
|
|
|---------------|----------------|
|
|
| > 5 | Recommended - do it |
|
|
| 3-5 | Optional - consider it |
|
|
| < 3 | Skip - not worth it |
|
|
|
|
## Output Format
|
|
|
|
### Recommended Section
|
|
High impact, low risk opportunities:
|
|
```
|
|
1. **pattern-name** at file:lines
|
|
- Description of the change
|
|
- Impact: High/Medium/Low (specific metric improvement)
|
|
- Risk: Low/Medium/High (why)
|
|
- Run: `/refactor <target> --pattern=<pattern>`
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Optional Section
|
|
Lower priority opportunities grouped by type.
|
|
|
|
### Summary
|
|
- Count of recommended vs optional
|
|
- Estimated overall improvement percentage
|
|
- Any blockers or dependencies
|
|
|
|
## Dependency Detection
|
|
|
|
Before recommending changes, check for:
|
|
|
|
1. **Test Coverage** - Does this code have tests?
|
|
2. **Usage Scope** - Is it used elsewhere?
|
|
3. **Side Effects** - Does it modify external state?
|
|
4. **Breaking Changes** - Will it change public API?
|
|
|
|
Flag dependencies in output:
|
|
```
|
|
Note: This refactoring requires updating 3 callers:
|
|
- src/api/handlers.py:45
|
|
- src/cli/commands.py:78
|
|
- tests/test_handlers.py:23
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Safety Checklist
|
|
|
|
Before recommending any change:
|
|
|
|
- [ ] All affected code locations identified
|
|
- [ ] No breaking API changes without flag
|
|
- [ ] Test coverage assessed
|
|
- [ ] Side effects documented
|
|
- [ ] Rollback path clear (git)
|