Individual skill

code-refactor

Produces a target design and an incremental migration sequence for a codebase, backed by an architectural review. Use when asked how a system should be refactored, restructured, or reorganized, or what it should look like afterward. Writes its findings and plan to `.issues/`; recommends changes but does not apply them.

skills/code-refactor/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 83315e4f8206fad56f9791a8f7884eec5609296a

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD: Yes
Scanner rules are current: Yes
Repository scan complete: No
Skill scan complete: Yes
Observed behavior: Network or broad shell
Last checked: Nov 5, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

Standard SKILL.md format has not been attested at this commit. No installation command is available; inspect the source.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings): 14
Repository last updated: Nov 6, 2026
License: MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

claude-code Repository topic
dotfiles Repository topic
hooks Repository topic
agent-skills Repository topic
claude-code-config Repository topic
claude-skills Repository topic
code-review Repository topic
release-automation Repository topic
subagents Repository topic
design Derived category

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files

SKILL.mdcore · 9,793 bytes

Read excerpt


Conduct a deep technical review of this codebase with the goal of determining how it should
be refactored.

**Do not begin by changing code.** First understand the system as it exists: what problem it
solves, how it is organized, what constraints appear to have shaped it, and where its
current design helps or hinders future work. This is an architectural and implementation
review, not a linting exercise.

Do not assume that more abstraction, more layering, more interfaces, more files, or more
design patterns constitute improvement. Prefer the simplest design that accurately expresses
the domain and satisfies the real requirements.

Scope the review to `$ARGUMENTS` if provided, otherwise treat the whole repository as in
scope. Examples: `the storage layer`, `cmd/`, `the plugin system`.