# Code Polish > Rewrites unprofessional code comments into clear ones and performs non-semantic cleanup. Use to professionalize code without altering logic or behavior. - Skill: `ranbot-ai/code-polish` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add ranbot-ai/code-polish` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/ranbot-ai/code-polish/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: ranbot-ai (https://skillmd.com/u/ranbot-ai) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/ranbot-ai/code-polish --- # Code Polish A constraint-based protocol for normalizing code comments and performing safe, non-semantic cleanup. This skill exists because human-written code tends to carry casual, outdated, or missing comments, while the goal is professional-grade documentation without touching behavior. This file is self-contained. Do not require any other skill file to execute this protocol. ## Prime Directive Comments and non-semantic cleanup are the job. Logic is never the job. If a change would alter what the code *does* — not just what it *says* or how it's *arranged* — it is out of scope, no matter how obviously "correct" the fix seems. --- ## When to Use Apply this skill when: - The user asks to "clean up," "professionalize," or "polish" existing code - Code is being prepped for code review, handoff, open-sourcing, or documentation - A file has a mix of human and AI-written comments and needs one consistent, professional voice - Comments are outdated, missing, redundant, or written casually (venting, placeholders, inside jokes) - The user wants comments improved but explicitly does **not** want logic touched Do not apply this skill when: - The user wants a bug fixed or behavior changed (that's a different job — logic edits are out of scope here) - The user wants a full rewrite or architectural restructuring - The only ask is adding new features or functionality --- ## Phase 0 — Full Read Before editing anything, read the entire file (or the entire relevant module if the codebase is large — not just the function in question). Do not comment or clean incrementally while still reading. A comment written without full context is a guess, and guesses are how "professional" comments end up wrong. Identify: - The language and its idiomatic comment/docstring convention (JSDoc, Python docstrings, `///` for Rust, XML doc comments, etc.) - Any existing project comment style already in use elsewhere in the file — match it rather than importing a foreign convention - Any comment that encodes real, non-obvious information (race conditions, workarounds for external bugs, "don't reorder this" warnings, business-rule justifications) --- ## Phase 1 — Comment Audit Classify every existing comment into one of these categories before touching it: | Category | Example | Action | |---|---|---| | **Junk / venting** | `// wtf is this`, `// idk why but it works` | Remove tone, extract any real information underneath, rewrite professionally — or delete if it truly holds zero information | | **Placeholder** | `// fix later`, `// TODO hack` | Convert to a proper `TODO:` note with the actual concern stated plainly, or remove if stale/resolved | | **Dead code comments** | Blocks of commented-out code | Remove, unless the surrounding context makes clear it's intentionally preserved (e.g., a documented fallback) — flag these to the user rather than silently deleting | | **Redundant** | `i++ // increment i` | Delete — the code already says this | | **Outdated / wrong** | Comment describes behavior the code no longer has | Rewrite to match current behavior. Flag to the user that it was stale, don't just silently fix it | | **Valuable but informal** | `// careful, this breaks if you call it twice, learned that the hard way` | Preserve the *information*, rewrite the *tone*. Never delete real warnings just because the phrasing is casual | | **Missing** | Complex logic, non-obvious business rules, or public APIs with no docstring | Add one. Don't over-comment simple, self-explanatory lines | --- ## Phase 2 — Non-Semantic Cleanup Scope is strictly limited to changes that cannot alter behavior: - Consistent indentation and whitespace - Consistent brace/bracket style matching the surrounding file - Removing truly dead code (unreachable blocks) — only when unambiguous, and flagged in the summary - Splitting overly long lines for readability - Local variable renaming for clarity is allowed **only** for private/local-scope names, and only when the improvement is unambiguous — never rename anything exported, public, or referenced across files without calling it out explicitly first Anything beyond this — reordering logic, extracting functions, changing control flow, altering algorithms — is out of scope for this skill. --- ## Phase 3 — Comment Rewrite / Addition Apply these standards to every comment touched or added: - **Explain why, not what.** The code already shows *what* it does; a comment earns its place by explaining intent, tradeoffs, or non-obvious constraints. - **Use the language's idiomatic doc format** for functions, classes, and public APIs (JSDoc, docstrings, `///`, etc.) — match the convention already used elsewhere in the file if one exists. - **Be concise.** No padding, no restating the obvious, no filler sentences. - **No informal register.** No jokes, no venting, no first-person asides ("I think this works because..."). - **No AI-tell phrasing.** Avoid generic filler like "This function is responsible for..." or "