Component Flattening Analysis

Component Flattening Analysis

Overview

This public intake copy packages packages/skills-catalog/skills/(architecture)/component-flattening-analysis from https://github.com/tech-leads-club/agent-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Component Flattening Analysis This skill identifies component hierarchy issues and ensures components exist only as leaf nodes in directory/namespace structures, removing orphaned classes from root namespaces.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: How to Use, Core Concepts, Component Structure Map, Orphaned Classes Found, Flattening Options Analysis, Flattening Plan.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• After gathering common domain components (Pattern 2)
• Before determining component dependencies (Pattern 4)
• When components have nested structures
• Finding orphaned classes in root namespaces
• Preparing for domain grouping
• Cleaning up component structure

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Map Namespace Tree
2. Build tree of all namespaces
3. Identify parent-child relationships
4. Mark leaf nodes (components)
5. Identify Root Namespaces
6. Find namespaces that have been extended
7. Mark as root namespaces (subdomains)

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Analysis Process

Phase 1: Map Component Structure

Scan directory/namespace structure to identify hierarchy:

1. Map Namespace Tree

   • Build tree of all namespaces
   • Identify parent-child relationships
   • Mark leaf nodes (components)

2. Identify Root Namespaces

   • Find namespaces that have been extended
   • Mark as root namespaces (subdomains)
   • Note which namespaces extend them

3. Locate Source Files

   • Find all source files in each namespace
   • Map files to their namespace location
   • Identify files in root namespaces

Example Structure Mapping:

#### Imported: Next Steps

After flattening components:

1. **Apply Determine Component Dependencies Pattern** - Analyze coupling
2. **Create Component Domains** - Group components into domains
3. **Create Domain Services** - Extract domains to services

#### Imported: How to Use

### Quick Start

Request analysis of your codebase:

- **"Find orphaned classes in root namespaces"**
- **"Flatten component hierarchies"**
- **"Identify components that need flattening"**
- **"Analyze component structure for hierarchy issues"**

### Usage Examples

**Example 1: Find Orphaned Classes**

User: "Find orphaned classes in root namespaces"

The skill will:

1. Scan component namespaces for hierarchy issues
2. Identify orphaned classes in root namespaces
3. Detect components built on top of other components
4. Suggest flattening strategies
5. Create refactoring plan

**Example 2: Flatten Components**

User: "Flatten component hierarchies in this codebase"

The skill will:

1. Identify components with hierarchy issues
2. Analyze orphaned classes
3. Suggest consolidation or splitting strategies
4. Create refactoring plan
5. Estimate effort

**Example 3: Component Structure Analysis**

User: "Analyze component structure for hierarchy issues"

The skill will:

1. Map component namespace structure
2. Identify root namespaces with code
3. Find components built on components
4. Flag hierarchy violations
5. Provide recommendations

### Step-by-Step Process

1. **Scan Structure**: Map component namespace hierarchies
2. **Identify Issues**: Find orphaned classes and component nesting
3. **Analyze Options**: Determine flattening strategy (consolidate vs split)
4. **Create Plan**: Generate refactoring plan with steps
5. **Execute**: Refactor components to remove hierarchy

## Examples

### Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

```text
Use @component-flattening-analysis to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @component-flattening-analysis against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @component-flattening-analysis for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @component-flattening-analysis using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Ensure components exist only as leaf nodes
• Remove orphaned classes from root namespaces
• Choose flattening strategy based on functionality
• Consolidate when functionality is related
• Split when functionality is distinct
• Extract shared code to .shared components
• Update all references after flattening

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Best Practices

Do's ✅

• Ensure components exist only as leaf nodes
• Remove orphaned classes from root namespaces
• Choose flattening strategy based on functionality
• Consolidate when functionality is related
• Split when functionality is distinct
• Extract shared code to .shared components
• Update all references after flattening
• Verify changes with tests

Don'ts ❌

• Don't leave orphaned classes in root namespaces
• Don't create components on top of other components
• Don't skip updating imports after moving files
• Don't flatten without analyzing impact
• Don't mix flattening strategies inconsistently
• Don't ignore shared code when flattening
• Don't skip testing after refactoring

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in packages/skills-catalog/skills/(architecture)/component-flattening-analysis, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Load only the files that materially change the answer, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @accessibility - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @ai-cold-outreach - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @ai-pricing - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @ai-sdr - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

• QUICK-REFERENCE.md
• README.md

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Core Concepts

Component Definition

A component is identified by a leaf node in directory/namespace structure:

• Leaf Node: The deepest directory containing source files
• Component: Source code files in leaf node namespace
• Subdomain: Parent namespace that has been extended

Key Rule: Components exist only as leaf nodes. If a namespace is extended, the parent becomes a subdomain, not a component.

Root Namespace

A root namespace is a namespace node that has been extended:

• Extended: Another namespace node added below it
• Example: ss.survey extended to ss.survey.templates
• Result: ss.survey becomes a root namespace (subdomain)

Orphaned Classes

Orphaned classes are source files in root namespaces:

• Location: Root namespace (non-leaf node)
• Problem: No definable component associated with them
• Solution: Move to leaf node namespace (component)

Example:

ss.survey/              ← Root namespace (extended by .templates)
├── Survey.js           ← Orphaned class (in root namespace)
└── templates/          ← Component (leaf node)
    └── Template.js

Flattening Strategies

Strategy 1: Consolidate Down

• Move code from leaf nodes into root namespace
• Makes root namespace the component
• Example: Move ss.survey.templates → ss.survey

Strategy 2: Split Up

• Move code from root namespace into new leaf nodes
• Creates new components from root namespace
• Example: Split ss.survey → ss.survey.create + ss.survey.process

Strategy 3: Move Shared Code

• Move shared code to dedicated component
• Creates .shared component
• Example: ss.survey shared code → ss.survey.shared

Imported: Component Structure Map

ss.survey/ ← Root namespace (extended)
├── Survey.js ← Orphaned class
├── SurveyProcessor.js ← Orphaned class
└── templates/ ← Component (leaf node)
├── EmailTemplate.js
└── SMSTemplate.js

ss.ticket/ ← Root namespace (extended)
├── Ticket.js ← Orphaned class
├── assign/ ← Component (leaf node)
│ └── TicketAssign.js
└── route/ ← Component (leaf node)
└── TicketRoute.js

### Phase 2: Identify Orphaned Classes

Find source files in root namespaces:

1. **Scan Root Namespaces**
   - Check each root namespace for source files
   - Identify files that are orphaned
   - Count orphaned files per root namespace

2. **Classify Orphaned Classes**
   - **Shared Code**: Common utilities, interfaces, abstract classes
   - **Domain Code**: Business logic that should be in component
   - **Mixed**: Combination of shared and domain code

3. **Assess Impact**
   - How many files are orphaned?
   - What functionality do they contain?
   - What components depend on them?

**Example Orphaned Class Detection**:

```markdown

#### Imported: Orphaned Classes Found

### Root Namespace: ss.survey

**Orphaned Files** (5 files):

- Survey.js (domain code - survey creation)
- SurveyProcessor.js (domain code - survey processing)
- SurveyValidator.js (shared code - validation)
- SurveyFormatter.js (shared code - formatting)
- SurveyConstants.js (shared code - constants)

**Classification**:

- Domain Code: 2 files (should be in components)
- Shared Code: 3 files (should be in .shared component)

**Dependencies**: Used by ss.survey.templates component

Phase 3: Analyze Flattening Options

Determine best flattening strategy for each root namespace:

1. Option 1: Consolidate Down

   • Move leaf node code into root namespace
   • Makes root namespace the component
   • Use when: Leaf nodes are small, related functionality

2. Option 2: Split Up

   • Move root namespace code into new leaf nodes
   • Creates multiple components from root
   • Use when: Root namespace has distinct functional areas

3. Option 3: Move Shared Code

   • Extract shared code to .shared component
   • Keep domain code in root or split
   • Use when: Root namespace has shared utilities

Example Flattening Analysis:

#### Imported: Flattening Options Analysis

### Root Namespace: ss.survey

**Current State**:

- Root namespace: 5 orphaned files
- Leaf component: ss.survey.templates (7 files)

**Option 1: Consolidate Down** ✅ Recommended

- Move templates code into ss.survey
- Result: Single component ss.survey
- Effort: Low (7 files to move)
- Rationale: Templates are small, related to survey functionality

**Option 2: Split Up**

- Create ss.survey.create (2 files)
- Create ss.survey.process (1 file)
- Create ss.survey.shared (3 files)
- Keep ss.survey.templates (7 files)
- Effort: High (multiple components to create)
- Rationale: More granular, but may be over-engineering

**Option 3: Move Shared Code**

- Create ss.survey.shared (3 shared files)
- Keep domain code in root (2 files)
- Keep ss.survey.templates (7 files)
- Effort: Medium
- Rationale: Separates shared from domain, but still has hierarchy

Phase 4: Create Flattening Plan

Generate refactoring plan for each root namespace:

1. Select Strategy

   • Choose best flattening option
   • Consider effort, complexity, maintainability

2. Plan Refactoring Steps

   • List files to move
   • Identify target namespaces
   • Note dependencies to update

3. Estimate Effort

   • Time to refactor
   • Risk assessment
   • Testing requirements

Example Flattening Plan:

#### Imported: Flattening Plan

### Priority: High

**Root Namespace: ss.survey**

**Strategy**: Consolidate Down

**Steps**:

1. Move files from ss.survey.templates/ to ss.survey/
   - EmailTemplate.js
   - SMSTemplate.js
   - [5 more files]

2. Update imports in dependent components
   - Update references from ss.survey.templates._ to ss.survey._

3. Remove ss.survey.templates/ directory

4. Update namespace declarations
   - Change namespace from ss.survey.templates to ss.survey

5. Run tests to verify changes

**Effort**: 2-3 days
**Risk**: Low (templates are self-contained)
**Dependencies**: None

Phase 5: Execute Flattening

Perform the refactoring:

1. Move Files

   • Move source files to target namespace
   • Update file paths and imports

2. Update References

   • Update imports in dependent components
   • Update namespace declarations
   • Update directory structure

3. Verify Changes

   • Run tests
   • Check for broken references
   • Validate component structure

Imported: Output Format

Orphaned Classes Report

#### Imported: Orphaned Classes Analysis

### Root Namespace: ss.survey

**Status**: ⚠️ Has Orphaned Classes

**Orphaned Files** (5 files):

- Survey.js (domain code)
- SurveyProcessor.js (domain code)
- SurveyValidator.js (shared code)
- SurveyFormatter.js (shared code)
- SurveyConstants.js (shared code)

**Leaf Components**:

- ss.survey.templates (7 files)

**Issue**: Root namespace contains code but is extended by leaf component

**Recommendation**: Consolidate templates into root namespace

Component Hierarchy Issues

#### Imported: Component Hierarchy Issues

| Root Namespace | Orphaned Files | Leaf Components                 | Issue                | Recommendation   |
| -------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------- | -------------------- | ---------------- |
| ss.survey      | 5              | 1 (templates)                   | Has orphaned classes | Consolidate down |
| ss.ticket      | 45             | 2 (assign, route)               | Large orphaned code  | Split up         |
| ss.reporting   | 0              | 3 (tickets, experts, financial) | No issue             | ✅ OK            |

Flattening Plan

#### Imported: Flattening Plan

### Priority: High

**ss.survey** → Consolidate Down

- Move 7 files from templates to root
- Effort: 2-3 days
- Risk: Low

### Priority: Medium

**ss.ticket** → Split Up

- Create ss.ticket.maintenance (30 files)
- Create ss.ticket.completion (10 files)
- Create ss.ticket.shared (5 files)
- Effort: 1 week
- Risk: Medium

Imported: Analysis Checklist

Structure Mapping:

• Mapped all namespace hierarchies
• Identified root namespaces
• Located all source files
• Marked leaf nodes (components)

Orphaned Class Detection:

• Scanned root namespaces for source files
• Identified orphaned classes
• Classified orphaned classes (shared/domain/mixed)
• Assessed impact and dependencies

Flattening Analysis:

• Analyzed consolidation option
• Analyzed splitting option
• Analyzed shared code extraction option
• Selected best strategy for each root namespace

Plan Creation:

• Selected flattening strategy
• Created refactoring steps
• Estimated effort and risk
• Prioritized work

Execution:

• Moved files to target namespaces
• Updated imports and references
• Updated namespace declarations
• Verified changes with tests

Imported: Implementation Notes

For Node.js/Express Applications

Components typically in services/ directory:

services/
├── survey/              ← Root namespace (extended)
│   ├── Survey.js       ← Orphaned class
│   └── templates/      ← Component (leaf node)
│       └── Template.js

Flattening:

• Consolidate: Move templates/ files to survey/
• Split: Create survey/create/ and survey/process/
• Shared: Create survey/shared/ for utilities

For Java Applications

Components identified by package structure:

com.company.survey       ← Root package (extended)
├── Survey.java         ← Orphaned class
└── templates/          ← Component (leaf package)
    └── Template.java

Flattening:

• Consolidate: Move templates classes to survey package
• Split: Create survey.create and survey.process packages
• Shared: Create survey.shared package

Detection Strategies

Find Root Namespaces with Code:

// Find root namespaces containing source files
function findRootNamespacesWithCode(namespaces, sourceFiles) {
  const rootNamespaces = namespaces.filter((ns) => {
    // Check if namespace has been extended
    const hasChildren = namespaces.some((n) => n.startsWith(ns + '.') || n.startsWith(ns + '/'))

    // Check if namespace contains source files
    const hasFiles = sourceFiles.some((f) => f.namespace === ns)

    return hasChildren && hasFiles
  })

  return rootNamespaces
}

Find Orphaned Classes:

// Find orphaned classes in root namespaces
function findOrphanedClasses(rootNamespaces, sourceFiles) {
  const orphaned = []

  rootNamespaces.forEach((rootNs) => {
    const files = sourceFiles.filter((f) => f.namespace === rootNs)
    orphaned.push({
      rootNamespace: rootNs,
      files: files,
      count: files.length,
    })
  })

  return orphaned
}

Imported: Fitness Functions

After flattening components, create automated checks:

No Source Code in Root Namespaces

// Alert if source code exists in root namespace
function checkRootNamespaceCode(namespaces, sourceFiles) {
  const violations = []

  namespaces.forEach((ns) => {
    // Check if namespace has been extended
    const hasChildren = namespaces.some((n) => n.startsWith(ns + '.') || n.startsWith(ns + '/'))

    if (hasChildren) {
      // Check if namespace contains source files
      const files = sourceFiles.filter((f) => f.namespace === ns)

      if (files.length > 0) {
        violations.push({
          namespace: ns,
          files: files.map((f) => f.name),
          issue: 'Root namespace contains source files (orphaned classes)',
        })
      }
    }
  })

  return violations
}

Components Only as Leaf Nodes

// Ensure components exist only as leaf nodes
function validateComponentStructure(namespaces, sourceFiles) {
  const violations = []

  // Find all leaf nodes (components)
  const leafNodes = namespaces.filter((ns) => {
    return !namespaces.some((n) => n.startsWith(ns + '.') || n.startsWith(ns + '/'))
  })

  // Check that all source files are in leaf nodes
  sourceFiles.forEach((file) => {
    if (!leafNodes.includes(file.namespace)) {
      violations.push({
        file: file.name,
        namespace: file.namespace,
        issue: 'Source file not in leaf node (component)',
      })
    }
  })

  return violations
}

Imported: Common Patterns

Pattern 1: Simple Consolidation

Before:

ss.survey/
├── Survey.js           ← Orphaned
└── templates/          ← Component
    └── Template.js

After:

ss.survey/              ← Component (leaf node)
├── Survey.js
└── Template.js

Pattern 2: Functional Split

Before:

ss.ticket/              ← Root namespace
├── Ticket.js           ← Orphaned (45 files)
├── assign/             ← Component
└── route/              ← Component

After:

ss.ticket/              ← Subdomain
├── maintenance/        ← Component
│   └── Ticket.js
├── completion/        ← Component
│   └── TicketCompletion.js
├── assign/             ← Component
└── route/              ← Component

Pattern 3: Shared Code Extraction

Before:

ss.survey/              ← Root namespace
├── Survey.js           ← Domain code
├── SurveyValidator.js  ← Shared code
└── templates/          ← Component

After:

ss.survey/              ← Component
├── Survey.js
└── shared/             ← Component
    └── SurveyValidator.js

Imported: Notes

• Components must exist only as leaf nodes
• Root namespaces with code are problematic
• Flattening improves component clarity
• Choose flattening strategy based on functionality
• Shared code should be in dedicated components
• Always update references after moving files
• Test thoroughly after flattening