cwijayasundara Keeping Refactors Pure
Tangled commits are how agents break brownfield code: published analyses show refactorings mixed into behavior fixes strongly correlate with broken builds, and renames routinely miss call sites. Purity makes every regression attributable to exactly one commit.
The Iron Law
A REFACTOR COMMIT CHANGES NO BEHAVIOR; A BEHAVIOR COMMIT REFACTORS NOTHING
Process
- Classify every hunk before committing: structural (rename, move, extract, formatting, dead-code removal) or behavioral (any observable difference). Mixed staging → split into two commits, structural first. An urgent behavioral bug discovered mid-refactor goes further: onto its own hotfix branch off main (issue filed and cited), so the fix ships on the smallest review while the refactor stays pure.
- In a refactor commit:
- All existing tests and pin-down snapshots pass byte-identical — no snapshot updates, no test edits, no assertion changes.
- Every renamed/moved symbol: enumerate its callers from
specs/brownfield/code-graph.json(edgestargeting the symbol's file) and verify each call site updated. No orphaned imports or dead copies left behind. - If an OpenAPI spec exists:
oasdiffbetween the before/after specs must report zero breaking changes.
- In a behavior commit: a test may be updated (not deleted) only with the authorizing story/issue cited in the commit message.
- Ratchet: test count and changed-line coverage (
diff-cover --fail-under) may not decrease in either commit type.
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "I'll fix that little bug while I'm in here" | That converts an attributable refactor into an unattributable mixed change. Separate commit. |
| "The test needed a tiny update for the rename" | A pure rename never changes assertions. If it did, behavior moved. |
| "Splitting commits is ceremony" | Bisecting a tangled regression costs hours; splitting costs seconds. |
| "I updated the snapshot because the output is equivalent" | Equivalent-but-different output IS a behavior change. Prove it in a behavior commit. |
| "The git log is full of mixed commits and nobody complained" | Survivorship bias — nobody complains until the first tangled bisect on a money path. Precedent is not justification. |
| "The bug is urgent, splitting delays the fix" | Urgency argues FOR splitting: an urgent fix belongs on the smallest, fastest-reviewed branch (hotfix off main), not bolted to a 200-file refactor review. |
Red Flags — STOP
- A commit message saying "refactor" with a diff touching test or snapshot files
- A rename where the code graph still shows callers of the old name
- Coverage or test count dropping across the commit
- "and" in your commit subject joining structural + behavioral work
Checklist
- Every hunk classified; mixed work split (structural commit first)
- Refactor commit: tests + snapshots byte-identical green
- Renames: all graph-listed call sites verified, no dead code left
- Behavior commit: test updates cite the authorizing story/issue
- Ratchet held (test count, diff coverage)
One commit, one kind of change. No exceptions without your human partner's permission.