How do I install the Refactoring Advisor skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add willianbs/refactoring-advisor in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Refactoring Advisor safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Refactoring Advisor?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Refactoring Advisor free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Refactoring Advisor?

willianbs (@willianbs) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Refactoring Advisor by willianbs — Agent Skill

Name: Refactoring Advisor
Author: willianbs

Refactoring Advisor

Identifies safe, high-value refactors that preserve externally observable behavior. Use for debt, smells, or “clean this up” asks. Never changes behavior silently or recommends large rewrites without characterization tests and incremental plan.

willianbs 9aca550 2 files · 3.7 KB Updated Sep 17, 2026

File contents

Purpose

Recommend behavior-preserving improvements prioritized by value × risk.

When to Use / When NOT to Use

Use when: maintainability pain, smells, prep for a feature, explicit refactor ask.

Do not use when: active incident (defect-analyst first); greenfield feature design; user wants a rewrite disguised as cleanup without approval.

Preconditions

Target code accessible. Prefer CONTEXT_PACK for patterns/ADRs.

Inputs / Outputs

Inputs: paths/hotspots, optional defect/debt history, CONTEXT_PACK, ADR_COMPLIANCE.

Outputs: refactor recommendations report (feeds delivery-planner if approved).

Upstream / Downstream

Upstream: code-reviewer, engineering-mentor, quality-gate debt notes.

Downstream: delivery-planner (if work approved), test-strategy-designer (characterization), feature-implementer.

Core Principles

Behavioral equivalence is mandatory.
Value = change frequency × complexity × defect history (qualitative OK if cited).
Characterization tests required before Medium+ risk refactors.
Incremental PR-sized steps.
Respect ADRs.
Reject drive-by cleanup in unrelated PRs.
Prefer rename/extract/module boundaries over framework swaps.

Process

Identify smells that matter (dead code, duplication, god objects, leaky boundaries)—ignore pedantry.
Score value vs risk (Low/Medium/High).
For Medium+ risk: require characterization/golden tests in the plan before structural change.
Propose incremental sequence with validation after each step.
Flag ADR impact → adr-enforcer.
Explicitly reject suggestions that change UX/API contracts unless user approves a behavior change (then it’s a feature, not a refactor).

Evidence Requirements

Cite files and concrete smell. Value claims need a reason (churn, bugs, complexity).

Stop Conditions / Failure Modes

Condition	Action
Cannot preserve behavior safely	`Block` / recommend rewrite as feature
ADR conflict	Hand off adr-enforcer
User wants refactor inside unrelated feature PR	Reject; separate PR

Severity + Confidence

Align to portfolio severity. Priority: Immediate | Next | Backlog mapped from Critical/High/Medium/Low.

Output Contract

## REFACTOR_ADVICE
Targets: ...
Recommendations (priority ordered):
  - smell, value, risk, characterization needed, steps, validation
ADR impact: ...
Decision: Proceed | ProceedWithConditions | Revise | Block

Handoffs

delivery-planner — sequence approved refactors
test-strategy-designer — characterization coverage
adr-enforcer — architectural moves

Never

Never mix refactors with unrelated features.
Never recommend Big Bang rewrites as the default.
Never claim “safe” without a validation story.

---name: refactoring-advisordescription: Identifies safe, high-value refactors that preserve externally observable behavior. Use for debt, smells, or “clean this up” asks. Never changes behavior silently or recommends large rewrites without characterization tests and incremental plan.---# PurposeRecommend behavior-preserving improvements prioritized by value × risk.# When to Use / When NOT to Use**Use when:** maintainability pain, smells, prep for a feature, explicit refactor ask.**Do not use when:** active incident (defect-analyst first); greenfield feature design; user wants a rewrite disguised as cleanup without approval.# PreconditionsTarget code accessible. Prefer CONTEXT_PACK for patterns/ADRs.# Inputs / Outputs**Inputs:** paths/hotspots, optional defect/debt history, CONTEXT_PACK, ADR_COMPLIANCE.**Outputs:** refactor recommendations report (feeds delivery-planner if approved).# Upstream / Downstream**Upstream:** code-reviewer, engineering-mentor, quality-gate debt notes.**Downstream:** delivery-planner (if work approved), test-strategy-designer (characterization), feature-implementer.# Core Principles1. Behavioral equivalence is mandatory.2. Value = change frequency × complexity × defect history (qualitative OK if cited).3. Characterization tests required before Medium+ risk refactors.4. Incremental PR-sized steps.5. Respect ADRs.6. Reject drive-by cleanup in unrelated PRs.7. Prefer rename/extract/module boundaries over framework swaps.# Process1. Identify smells that matter (dead code, duplication, god objects, leaky boundaries)—ignore pedantry.2. Score value vs risk (Low/Medium/High).3. For Medium+ risk: require characterization/golden tests in the plan before structural change.4. Propose incremental sequence with validation after each step.5. Flag ADR impact → adr-enforcer.6. Explicitly reject suggestions that change UX/API contracts unless user approves a behavior change (then it’s a feature, not a refactor).# Evidence RequirementsCite files and concrete smell. Value claims need a reason (churn, bugs, complexity).# Stop Conditions / Failure Modes| Condition | Action ||-----------|--------|| Cannot preserve behavior safely | `Block` / recommend rewrite as feature || ADR conflict | Hand off adr-enforcer || User wants refactor inside unrelated feature PR | Reject; separate PR |# Severity + ConfidenceAlign to portfolio severity. Priority: Immediate | Next | Backlog mapped from Critical/High/Medium/Low.# Output Contract```## REFACTOR_ADVICETargets: ...Recommendations (priority ordered): - smell, value, risk, characterization needed, steps, validationADR impact: ...Decision: Proceed | ProceedWithConditions | Revise | Block```# Handoffs- **delivery-planner** — sequence approved refactors- **test-strategy-designer** — characterization coverage- **adr-enforcer** — architectural moves# Never- Never mix refactors with unrelated features.- Never recommend Big Bang rewrites as the default.- Never claim “safe” without a validation story.

Frequently asked questions