Refactor Workflow

Refactor description: $ARGUMENTS

Describe what you want to refactor and why. Include:

• The current structure or pattern being changed
• The target structure or pattern
• The motivation (performance, readability, architectural alignment, etc.)
• Known risk areas or dependencies

---

Prerequisite — Test coverage check

Before any agent is invoked, verify that the code being refactored has adequate test coverage.

A refactor without tests is not a refactor — it is a rewrite with unknown behavioral consequences.

If coverage is insufficient:

1. STOP. Report the coverage gap to the human.
2. Suggest invoking /cc:test-plan first to establish coverage.
3. Do not proceed with the refactor until coverage is confirmed.

---

Step 1 — Architectural justification (architect)

Always invoke architect first, regardless of risk level. A refactor without a written justification is scope creep in disguise.

architect must produce a Refactor Plan that includes:

• Statement of the problem with the current structure
• Proposed target structure and rationale
• Affected files and module boundaries
• Risk level: low, medium, or high
• Behavioral invariants that must not change
• Open questions requiring human input

Scope creep warning: If during planning architect identifies unrelated improvements, they must be listed separately as "Out of scope." They are not part of this refactor.

STOP here. Show the Refactor Plan and wait for explicit human approval. Do not proceed without written approval of the plan.

---

Step 2 — Route by risk

Read the risk field from the Refactor Plan and follow the corresponding route.

Low-risk route

Applies when: the refactor is purely internal, no public interfaces change, full test coverage exists for the affected code, and behavioral impact is isolated to the refactored module.

Route: architect (done) → implementer

Proceed to Step 3a.

Medium or high-risk route

Applies when: module boundaries change, shared interfaces are affected, performance characteristics may change, or the refactor touches more than two files with behavioral impact.

Route: architect (done) → implementer → reviewer

Proceed to Step 3b.

---

Step 3a — Implementation, low-risk (implementer)

Invoke implementer with the approved Refactor Plan. Implementer creates a Git Worktree before touching any file; all edits happen inside it.

implementer must:

1. Read the Refactor Plan before opening any file
2. Apply only the changes specified in the plan
3. Run the full test suite before and after — both runs must pass
4. Produce an Implementation Summary: what changed, what did not change, test results before and after

Any deviation from the plan — including "obvious improvements" encountered during implementation — must be flagged and held for a separate task.

---

Step 3b — Implementation, medium/high-risk (implementer)

Same rules as 3a. Additionally:

• implementer must document any unexpected complexity discovered during implementation and pause if the complexity changes the risk assessment
• If new risks are found, STOP and report to the human before continuing

---

Step 4 — Test suite verification

For all risk levels, confirm:

• All tests that existed before the refactor still pass
• No test was deleted or commented out to make the suite pass
• Behavior documented in the Task Card remains unchanged

If any test fails that was passing before, the refactor has introduced a regression. STOP and report.

---

Step 5 — Code review (reviewer) — medium/high-risk only

Invoke reviewer with the diff and Refactor Plan.

reviewer must verify:

• The implementation matches the approved plan
• No behavior was changed beyond the plan's scope
• No unrelated files were modified

Review Report must include CRITICAL / WARNING / SUGGESTION findings. CRITICAL findings block completion.

---

Completion

Report: Refactor Plan (approved), Implementation Summary, test results before and after, Review Report (if applicable).

The refactor is complete only when: all pre-existing tests still pass, the implementation matches the approved plan exactly, and no CRITICAL review findings remain.