Template

Files

lmiranda 7c8a20c804 refactor: extract skills from commands across 8 plugins

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>

2026-01-30 17:32:24 -05:00

2.7 KiB

Raw Blame History

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: `/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)

2.7 KiB Raw Blame History