Code Simplifier

Code Simplification

Overview

Simplify code by reducing complexity while preserving exact behavior. The goal is not fewer lines — it's code that is easier to read, understand, modify, and debug. Every simplification must pass a simple test: "Would a new team member understand this faster than the original?"

When to Use

• After a feature is working and tests pass, but the implementation feels heavier than it needs to be
• During code review when readability or complexity issues are flagged
• When you encounter deeply nested logic, long functions, or unclear names
• When refactoring code written under time pressure
• When consolidating related logic scattered across files
• After merging changes that introduced duplication or inconsistency

When NOT to use:

• Code is already clean and readable — don't simplify for the sake of it
• You don't understand what the code does yet — comprehend before you simplify
• The code is performance-critical and the "simpler" version would be measurably slower
• You're about to rewrite the module entirely — simplifying throwaway code wastes effort

The Five Principles

1. Preserve Behavior Exactly

Don't change what the code does — only how it expresses it. All inputs, outputs, side effects, error behavior, and edge cases must remain identical. If you're not sure a simplification preserves behavior, don't make it.

ASK BEFORE EVERY CHANGE:
→ Does this produce the same output for every input?
→ Does this maintain the same error behavior?
→ Does this preserve the same side effects and ordering?
→ Do all existing tests still pass without modification?

2. Follow Project Conventions

Simplification means making code more consistent with the codebase, not imposing external preferences. Before simplifying:

1. Read CLAUDE.md / project conventions
2. Study how neighboring code handles similar patterns
3. Match the project's style for:
   - Import ordering and module system
   - Function declaration style
   - Naming conventions
   - Error handling patterns
   - Type annotation depth

Simplification that breaks project consistency is not simplification — it's churn.

3. Prefer Clarity Over Cleverness

Explicit code is better than compact code when the compact version requires a mental pause to parse.

// UNCLEAR: Dense ternary chain
const label = isNew ? 'New' : isUpdated ? 'Updated' : isArchived ? 'Archived' : 'Active';

// CLEAR: Readable mapping
function getStatusLabel(item: Item): string {
  if (item.isNew) return 'New';
  if (item.isUpdated) return 'Updated';
  if (item.isArchived) return 'Archived';
  return 'Active';
}

// UNCLEAR: Chained reduces with inline logic
const result = items.reduce((acc, item) => ({
  ...acc,
  [item.id]: { ...acc[item.id], count: (acc[item.id]?.count ?? 0) + 1 }
}), {});

// CLEAR: Named intermediate step
const countById = new Map<string, number>();
for (const item of items) {
  countById.set(item.id, (countById.get(item.id) ?? 0) + 1);
}

4. Maintain Balance

Simplification has a failure mode: over-simplification. Watch for these traps:

• Inlining too aggressively — removing a helper that gave a concept a name makes the call site harder to read
• Combining unrelated logic — two simple functions merged into one complex function is not simpler
• Removing "unnecessary" abstraction — some abstractions exist for extensibility or testability, not complexity
• Optimizing for line count — fewer lines is not the goal; easier comprehension is

5. Scope to What Changed

Default to simplifying recently modified code. Avoid drive-by refactors of unrelated code unless explicitly asked to broaden scope. Unscoped simplification creates noise in diffs and risks unintended regressions.

The Simplification Process

Step 1: Understand Before Touching (Chesterton's Fence)

Before changing or removing anything, understand why it exists. This is Chesterton's Fence: if you see a fence across a road and don't understand why it's there, don't tear it down. First understand the reason, then decide if the reason still applies.

BEFORE SIMPLIFYING, ANSWER:
- What is this code's responsibility?
- What calls it? What does it call?
- What are the edge cases and error paths?
- Are there tests that define the expected behavior?
- Why might it have been written this way? (Performance? Platform constraint? Historical reason?)
- Check git blame: what was the original context for this code?

If you can't answer these, you're not ready to simplify. Read more context first.

Step 2: Identify Simplification Opportunities

Scan for these patterns — each one is a concrete signal, not a vague smell:

Structural complexity:

Naming and readability:

Redundancy:

Step 3: Apply Changes Incrementally

Make one simplification at a time. Run tests after each change. Submit refactoring changes separately from feature or bug fix changes. A PR that refactors and adds a feature is two PRs — split them.

FOR EACH SIMPLIFICATION:
1. Make the change
2. Run the test suite
3. If tests pass → commit (or continue to next simplification)
4. If tests fail → revert and reconsider

Avoid batching multiple simplifications into a single untested change. If something breaks, you need to know which simplification caused it.

The Rule of 500: If a refactoring would touch more than 500 lines, invest in automation (codemods, sed scripts, AST transforms) rather than making the changes by hand. Manual edits at that scale are error-prone and exhausting to review.

Step 4: Verify the Result

After all simplifications, step back and evaluate the whole:

COMPARE BEFORE AND AFTER:
- Is the simplified version genuinely easier to understand?
- Did you introduce any new patterns inconsistent with the codebase?
- Is the diff clean and reviewable?
- Would a teammate approve this change?

If the "simplified" version is harder to understand or review, revert. Not every simplification attempt succeeds.

Language-Specific Guidance

Go

// SIMPLIFY: Nested conditionals with guard clauses.
// Before
func normalizePullRequest(pr PullRequest) (PullRequest, error) {
	if pr.Number > 0 {
		if pr.RepositoryID != 0 {
			pr.UpdatedAt = pr.UpdatedAt.UTC()
			return pr, nil
		}
		return PullRequest{}, errors.New("repository id is required")
	}
	return PullRequest{}, errors.New("pull request number is required")
}

// After
func normalizePullRequest(pr PullRequest) (PullRequest, error) {
	if pr.Number <= 0 {
		return PullRequest{}, errors.New("pull request number is required")
	}
	if pr.RepositoryID == 0 {
		return PullRequest{}, errors.New("repository id is required")
	}
	pr.UpdatedAt = pr.UpdatedAt.UTC()
	return pr, nil
}

// SIMPLIFY: Repeated string construction.
// Before
func repoKey(owner, name string) string {
	return strings.ToLower(owner) + "/" + strings.ToLower(name)
}

// After
func repoKey(owner, name string) string {
	return strings.ToLower(owner + "/" + name)
}

TypeScript

// SIMPLIFY: Unnecessary async wrapper.
// Before
async function loadPullRequest(id: string): Promise<PullRequest> {
  return await api.getPullRequest(id);
}

// After
function loadPullRequest(id: string): Promise<PullRequest> {
  return api.getPullRequest(id);
}

// SIMPLIFY: Chained array transforms hiding intent.
// Before
const staleOpenItems = items
  .filter((item) => item.state === 'open')
  .filter((item) => item.reviewDecision !== 'approved')
  .filter((item) => Date.now() - Date.parse(item.updatedAt) > staleAfterMs);

// After
function needsReview(item: PullRequestSummary): boolean {
  const ageMs = Date.now() - Date.parse(item.updatedAt);
  return item.state === 'open' && item.reviewDecision !== 'approved' && ageMs > staleAfterMs;
}

const staleOpenItems = items.filter(needsReview);

// SIMPLIFY: Redundant boolean return.
// Before
function isMergeable(pr: PullRequestSummary): boolean {
  if (pr.state === 'open' && pr.mergeState === 'clean') {
    return true;
  }
  return false;
}

// After
function isMergeable(pr: PullRequestSummary): boolean {
  return pr.state === 'open' && pr.mergeState === 'clean';
}

Svelte

<!-- SIMPLIFY: Duplicated conditional markup. -->
<!-- Before -->
{#if pr.state === 'open'}
  <Chip tone="success">Open</Chip>
{:else if pr.state === 'closed'}
  <Chip tone="neutral">Closed</Chip>
{:else if pr.state === 'merged'}
  <Chip tone="accent">Merged</Chip>
{/if}

<!-- After -->
<script lang="ts">
  const stateTone = {
    open: 'success',
    closed: 'neutral',
    merged: 'accent',
  } satisfies Record<PullRequestState, ChipTone>;
</script>

<Chip tone={stateTone[pr.state]}>{pr.state}</Chip>

<!-- SIMPLIFY: Repeated event handlers with inline state updates. -->
<!-- Before -->
<button => (view = 'triage')}>Triage</button>
<button => (view = 'review')}>Review</button>
<button => (view = 'merged')}>Merged</button>

<!-- After -->
<script lang="ts">
  const views = ['triage', 'review', 'merged'] as const;
</script>

{#each views as nextView}
  <button => (view = nextView)}>{nextView}</button>
{/each}

Common Rationalizations

Red Flags

• Simplification that requires modifying tests to pass (you likely changed behavior)
• "Simplified" code that is longer and harder to follow than the original
• Renaming things to match your preferences rather than project conventions
• Removing error handling because "it makes the code cleaner"
• Simplifying code you don't fully understand
• Batching many simplifications into one large, hard-to-review commit
• Refactoring code outside the scope of the current task without being asked

Verification

After completing a simplification pass:

• All existing tests pass without modification
• Build succeeds with no new warnings
• Linter/formatter passes (no style regressions)
• Each simplification is a reviewable, incremental change
• The diff is clean — no unrelated changes mixed in
• Simplified code follows project conventions (checked against CLAUDE.md or equivalent)
• No error handling was removed or weakened
• No dead code was left behind (unused imports, unreachable branches)
• A teammate or review agent would approve the change as a net improvement