Refactoring Analysis

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: instruction override, no behavioural pass.

- **Heuristic**: TypeScript's `any` used to bypass type safety instead of proper

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 118e61cf1c61 · 16 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publisherpedronauck GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source folderpedronauck/skills/skills/mine/refactoring-analysisThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceNot declaredAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict118e61cf1c61A new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedLast push 31 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Audit code quality and architectural health or plan refactoring using Fowler code smells and techniques; write prioritized findings to docs/_refacs/. Excludes formatting, performance, and security audits.

---
name: refactoring-analysis
description: "Audit code quality and architectural health or plan refactoring using Fowler code smells and techniques; write prioritized findings to docs/_refacs/. Excludes formatting, performance, and security audits."
disable-model-invocation: true
metadata:
  author: Pedro Nauck
  github: https://github.com/pedronauck
  repository: https://github.com/pedronauck/skills
---

# Refactoring Analysis

Find changes that reduce demonstrated maintenance cost while preserving behavior. Name the code smell, source evidence, and concrete improvement; a textbook category without a practical consequence is not a finding.

1. Resolve the scope from the request and active context. For a broad request, map the codebase and prioritize dependencies/hotspots; do not stop for confirmation merely because it exceeds 50 files. Disclose sampled or uninspected areas.
2. Read the relevant sections of `references/code-smells-catalog.md` and `references/refactoring-techniques.md` for the candidates found. Catalog thresholds are signals, not mandatory edits or a requirement to produce findings in every category.
3. Trace ownership, coupling, call sites, and public boundaries. Consult `references/solid-ddd-context.md` only for a domain-model question; ordinary code does not need a SOLID pass.
4. Rank confirmed opportunities by user/maintenance impact, frequency, risk, and effort. For the highest-impact items, describe the before/after behavior and owning verification. Reuse existing coverage; missing tests do not automatically require a new suite at every layer.
5. A requested report defaults to `docs/_refacs/<YYYYMMDD>-<slug>.md`. Adapt `assets/refactoring-report-template.md`; a narrow request can use a concise response. Check material citations and reasoning with `checklists/analysis-checklist.md` as applicable.
6. If the user requested an audit only, report findings. If they already authorized refactoring, continue the selected work without asking again. Preserve published compatibility and unrelated changes.

Excerpt, first 2,051 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/pedronauck/skills
git -C skills checkout 118e61cf1c61

Works in

1. 2026-10-16
   !CAUTION C 79 / 100

   first audit · source 118e61cf1c61

Questions about Refactoring Analysis

• github.com/pedronauck/skills/tree/main/skills/mine/refactoring-a — the audited source at commit 118e61cf1c61 and every finding aboveObserved · 16 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology