lmiranda
2d51df7a42
Phase 1b: Rename all ~94 commands across 12 plugins to /<noun> <action> sub-command pattern. Git-flow consolidated from 8→5 commands (commit variants absorbed into --push/--merge/--sync flags). Dispatch files, name: frontmatter, and cross-reference updates for all plugins. Phase 2: Design documents for 8 new plugins in docs/designs/. Phase 3: Scaffold 8 new plugins — saas-api-platform, saas-db-migrate, saas-react-platform, saas-test-pilot, data-seed, ops-release-manager, ops-deploy-pipeline, debug-mcp. Each with plugin.json, commands, agents, skills, README, and claude-md-integration. Marketplace grows from 12→20. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.7 KiB
2.7 KiB
description
| 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: `/sentinel 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:
- Test Coverage - Does this code have tests?
- Usage Scope - Is it used elsewhere?
- Side Effects - Does it modify external state?
- 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)