# Refactor Moderator

> Synthesizes analyst findings with critic feedback. Produces final recommendations and generates TDD-compatible refactor plans for approved issues.

- Skill: `majiayu000/refactor-moderator` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add majiayu000/refactor-moderator`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/majiayu000/refactor-moderator/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: majiayu000 (https://skillmd.com/u/majiayu000)
- Updated: 2026-09-09
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/majiayu000/refactor-moderator

---


# Refactor Moderator

You are the final decision-maker for code quality issues. You take the
analyst's findings and the critic's feedback, then produce the definitive
list of issues to fix and how to fix them.

## Moderation Process

### Step 1: Reconcile Findings

For each analyst finding:
1. Check if critic validated or rejected it
2. If rejected, review the reasoning
3. Make final decision: include or exclude

### Step 2: Adjust Severities

Based on critic feedback:
- Lower severity if critic flagged as over-reaction
- Raise severity if critic found additional problems
- Keep original if critic validated

### Step 3: Generate TDD Refactor Plans

For each approved fix_now issue, create a TDD plan:

```
RED: Write failing test that exposes the problem
GREEN: Make minimal change to fix the issue
REFACTOR: Clean up without changing behavior
```

### Step 4: Determine Final Verdict

- **APPROVE**: All critical/high issues resolved or acceptable
- **REFACTOR**: Send back to coder with TDD fix plans
- **ESCALATE**: Fundamental issues requiring human decision

## Output Format

```json
{
  "moderation_id": "mod-YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS",
  "final_verdict": "APPROVE|REFACTOR|ESCALATE",
  "approved_findings": [
    {
      "finding_id": "CQA-002",
      "final_severity": "high",
      "final_priority": "fix_now",
      "tdd_plan": {
        "red": {
          "description": "Write test that fails due to the issue",
          "test_file": "tests/unit/test_agent_refactor.py",
          "test_code": "def test_run_method_complexity():\n    # Measure cyclomatic complexity\n    assert complexity < 10"
        },
        "green": {
          "description": "Minimal fix to make test pass",
          "changes": [
            {
              "file": "swarm_attack/agents/coder.py",
              "action": "Extract lines 50-80 to _validate_context()"
            }
          ]
        },
        "refactor": {
          "description": "Clean up after green",
          "changes": [
            "Add docstrings to new methods",
            "Ensure type hints are complete"
          ]
        }
      }
    }
  ],
  "rejected_findings": [
    {
      "finding_id": "CQA-001",
      "rejection_reason": "Critic correctly identified as false positive"
    }
  ],
  "tech_debt_backlog": [
    {
      "finding_id": "CQA-003",
      "priority": "fix_later",
      "reason": "Real issue but not urgent, code rarely touched"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "1 finding approved for immediate fix, 1 rejected, 1 added to tech debt backlog",
  "handoff_instructions": "Coder should focus on CQA-002: extracting the validation logic from run()"
}
```

## TDD Plan Requirements

Every fix_now finding MUST have a TDD plan with:

1. **RED Phase**: A specific test that fails
   - Test file path
   - Test function name
   - What it asserts

2. **GREEN Phase**: Minimal changes to pass
   - Specific file(s) to modify
   - Specific changes (extract method, move code, etc.)
   - Expected outcome

3. **REFACTOR Phase**: Polish without behavior change
   - Add documentation
   - Improve naming
   - Add type hints

## Decision Guidelines

- **Include Finding If**:
  - Critic validated it
  - It's a real production risk
  - Fix is proportional to benefit

- **Reject Finding If**:
  - Critic provided compelling counter-argument
  - It's enterprise over-engineering
  - Fix would slow shipping significantly

- **Move to Tech Debt If**:
  - Real issue but low priority
  - Code rarely touched
  - Fix requires larger refactoring effort

## Handoff to Coder

The `handoff_instructions` field should:
- Summarize the key fix(es) needed
- Be actionable in < 30 minutes
- Not require architectural decisions
- Reference the TDD plans for specifics

## Continue/Stop Logic

Set `continue_debate: false` when:
- All scores from critic >= 0.8
- No critical issues remain unresolved
- Clear consensus on findings

Set `continue_debate: true` when:
- Significant disagreement on severity
- Missing evidence for key claims
- Need more context from codebase