[Documentation] Use when generating, smart-merging or refactoring the root AI context (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md) and its Claude/Codex projections. Config file only: project-config.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
[Workflow] Restructure existing code while preserving observable behavior, proven by baseline and final tests plus change review.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
Read the registry → workflows.workflow-refactor together with this skill. Call /start-workflow workflow-refactor to resolve the selected mode, pre-actions and fingerprint.
Todo FIRST: before triage, analysis or step execution, create one todo per phase of the selected mode, in order, listing every occurrence of that phase as a line, including conditional/optional ones (a mode that declares no phases gets one todo per occurrence); preserve occurrence IDs, roles and barrier groups. Use native todo tools or an equivalent persistent ledger. Then mark the first todo in_progress; close each step line with its run or skip evidence, and complete a phase todo only when every line is closed and its applicable exit gates hold.
Mode selection and registry loading prepare tracking; any 'first action' below means the first substantive action after this bootstrap.
Call each step skill: read its linked SKILL.md and execute its protocol through the active host with the registry args. Reading or naming a skill alone is not execution. Required gates and core/optional flex follow the linked start-workflow Step Execution Protocol; keep this skill's quality gates, loops and evidence requirements.
Conditions: load each occurrence's registry applicability.when and skipReason verbatim, and record its run/skip evidence through the linked start-workflow protocol. Do not silently omit a todo or turn a conditional skill into an unconditional call; close, in one batch at triage, the todos whose condition is already false there. Declared parallel groups retain their all-return barrier.
Explicit step-skill calls by mode (registry order; roles and conditions remain owned by the registry):
default: /investigate (core) → /integration-test (optional; conditional) → /test (gate) → /plan (core) → /plan --mode=validate (optional; conditional) → /plan --mode=execute (core) → /spec [mode=tests] (optional; conditional) → /work-item --mode=review --type=spec-tests (optional; conditional) → /spec [mode=sync] (optional; conditional) → /workflow-review-changes --tests=defer (gate) → /integration-test --mode=verify (optional; conditional) → /test --proven=@verify (gate) → /workflow-end (gate) → /watzup (optional; conditional)
Phase todos: Discover (3) → Plan (2) → Build (4) → Review (1; exit review-converged) → Verify (2; exit tests-pass) → Close (2; exit run-closed)Regenerate this block with node .claude/scripts/lib/workflow-skill-contract.cjs --write after registry edits; /sync-codex refreshes it before mirroring.
Goal: Restructure existing code without changing its observable behavior, proven by the same test scope green before and after the change plus a converged change review — cheap on a small local cleanup, thorough on a wide or risky restructure.
Use this to restructure, reorganize, rename, extract, simplify or pay down technical debt while behavior stays fixed. A change the user wants to behave differently is a feature (workflow-feature) or a bugfix (workflow-bugfix); a single trivial rename in one file fits a direct edit plus test and review.
Key rules:
docs/project-config.json → workflowPatterns.Classify the refactor before choosing steps and record the result in the workflow report:
| Triage result | Typical route through the recommended skills |
|---|---|
| XS/S, one module, no contract/data surface | investigate → baseline test → short plan (the plan's light profile) → execute → review → test → close |
| M, or cross-module | keep one lean plan; add characterization tests, before the baseline run, where the investigation shows a coverage gap |
| L/XL, public contract/data/security, or ambiguous target structure | add /plan --mode=validate; execute in bounded batches per module with one report per batch, baseline and final test per batch plus a full-scope final run |
Non-negotiable — /workflow-end checks each against its evidence before the run closes:
/test, gate, before any change) — the test command, scope and pass summary for the code the refactor touches, including any characterization tests written just before it. A red existing test stops the refactor: report it, or route the failure to workflow-bugfix; never refactor on a red base. A red characterization test written in this run gets a five-way verdict first: a test-authoring fault is corrected and re-run once on the unrefactored tree; a real defect stops the refactor like an existing test./test --proven=@verify, gate, after the change and after review fixes) — the baseline scope plus any characterization tests run green in THIS run, through /integration-test --mode=verify when it runs (it owns the mutation check) and /test for every tier that verify report does not cover; when the verify step does not run, the main session owns any mutation check. Test code changed only mechanically (imports, renamed symbols, moved paths)./workflow-review-changes, gate, INLINE in the main session) — validated blocking findings fixed and the fixed state re-reviewed./workflow-end (top-level only).Specs normally do not change in a refactor; the spec steps below run only when a preserved invariant lacks a TC (/spec [mode=tests]) or canonical specs or TCs point at code or tests the refactor moved (/spec [mode=sync]). Any observable behavior, public contract or docs/spec boundary change means the work is no longer a pure refactor — stop and confirm with the user, then run the spec/test/docs sync that change requires.
Step contract: /start-workflow owns how gate, core and optional steps run; this table summarizes this workflow's intent, outcomeGates and step roles from .claude/workflows.json, in its recommended default order.
| Step | Role | Runs when / earns its cost | Proves |
|---|---|---|---|
/investigate | core | always in practice — scope, callers, 3+ local pattern examples | scope and target pattern |
/integration-test | optional | touched behavior has no test that would fail if it changed — written before the baseline run | characterization tests |
/test | gate | always — BEFORE any change, on the affected scope plus any characterization tests (one pre-change run) | baseline green |
/plan | core | always in practice; XS/S keeps it to files, steps, rollback (light profile) | refactor plan |
/plan --mode=validate | optional | size L+, or an ambiguous target structure or scope | plan confirmed |
/plan --mode=execute | core | always in practice — small verifiable increments | the change |
/spec [mode=tests] | optional | a preserved invariant lacks a TC; moved or renamed paths go to the spec sync | TCs match |
/work-item --mode=review --type=spec-tests | optional | TC content changed beyond evidence paths | TC quality |
/spec [mode=sync] | optional | specs/TCs reference moved or renamed code/test paths | specs match |
/workflow-review-changes --tests=defer | gate | always — INLINE in the main session | review converged |
/integration-test --mode=verify | optional | integration tests written or changed in this run, or core logic moved — after the review; owns the mutation check | integration tests green, mutants killed |
/test --proven=@verify | gate | always — after the change and review fixes, baseline scope; runs only the tiers this run's verify report does not cover | behavior preserved |
/workflow-end | gate | always | run closed — prints the recap when /watzup does not run |
/watzup | optional | a session report was requested, or several workflows need one handoff | consolidated session report |
Outcome gates: tests pass · review converged · run closed.
A recommended step the triage shows would do no real work is not run; record it through the Step Execution Protocol with its evidence.
Ad hoc skills (not registry steps): /investigate again before removing "unused" code — grep evidence, confidence ≥80%, cross-module/service check · /performance-review for a performance-driven refactor (below) · /code-simplifier for a clean-up pass, only before the review and final test so they cover its result.
[PERFORMANCE-SDD ROUTE] A performance-driven refactor (query optimization, caching, fewer allocations, throughput) runs
/performance-reviewfor benchmark evidence — SLA, baseline, measurement command — while preserving observable behavior and functional no-regression checks. A pure behavior-preserving optimization adds no new TCs when the invariant-preservation evidence and the final/testgate cover it; a changed SLA, performance constraint, state timing boundary, public contract or docs/spec boundary still requires spec, test and docs sync.
You choose inline vs sub-agent, parallel waves vs sequential, batching and order — optimize wall-clock and token cost at equal quality. Fixed constraints (data dependencies):
/plan --mode=execute changes it.--tests=defer) and the verify and final test run after it; a fix made by the verify step re-runs /workflow-review-changes --tests=defer (SYNC:verify-last-order); when /integration-test --mode=verify does not run, the main session owns any mutation check; /workflow-end runs last./workflow-review-changes runs INLINE in the main session — never as a sub-agent — and owns the test-quality review and the docs/domain-entity reference refresh; do not repeat them here.Recommended: XS/S work inline without sub-agents; L/XL mechanical changes applied per module batch with a bounded report each, then one full-scope final test.
tmp/reports/workflow-refactor-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md before the first finding; append triage, baseline evidence, pattern examples, batch results and deviations per step; re-read it and TaskList after compaction. Sub-agent briefs make report-writing their first deliverable.ask user question tool.Activate the workflow-refactor workflow: run /start-workflow workflow-refactor with the user's prompt as context. Apply the shared SDD Artifact Contract from shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md in the active skills root; project conventions come from docs/project-config.json and the docs index.
Recommended default order (roles in the table above):
IMPORTANT MANDATORY Steps: /investigate -> /integration-test -> /test -> /plan -> /plan --mode=validate -> /plan --mode=execute -> /spec [mode=tests] -> /work-item --mode=review --type=spec-tests -> /spec [mode=sync] -> /workflow-review-changes --tests=defer -> /integration-test --mode=verify -> /test --proven=@verify -> /workflow-end -> /watzup
<!-- PROTOCOL-GUIDES:START -->Protocol guides — Apply each protocol only when its read-when condition holds. If a protocol's text is not in your context, read its file below before you act on it.
incremental-persistence — Persist results per file or section while the work proceeds; a sub-agent or heavy step processes more than three files → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/incremental-persistence.mdsession-goal-ledger — Keep the original goal and every user prompt of the session; running a long or multi-prompt session → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/session-goal-ledger.mdsubagent-return-contract — Sub-agents return a structured envelope and a report path, never an inline report; spawning a sub-agent → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/subagent-return-contract.mdverify-last-order — Build all phases and write tests, review statically, then verify once with a mutation check; planning or running any code-changing task → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/verify-last-order.mdworkflow-registry-binding — Read the workflow registry entry and the workflow skill together, since they must agree; executing or editing a workflow → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/workflow-registry-binding.mdTask Planning Rules: pin Original goal:, keep User prompts this session: P1…Pn, and map the result to every prompt before claiming done; full text: .claude/skills/shared/protocols/session-goal-ledger.md.IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: restructure existing code without changing its observable behavior, proven by the same test scope green before and after plus a converged change review.
/test (gate) proves them and the existing scope green BEFORE any change; the final /test (gate) green on the same scope AFTER the change.workflowPatterns; removing "unused" code needs /investigate evidence./workflow-review-changes runs INLINE in the main session; close with /workflow-end.还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
[Documentation] Use when generating, smart-merging or refactoring the root AI context (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md) and its Claude/Codex projections. Config file only: project-config.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
[Code Quality] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for AI code or plan review: LLM calls, prompts, agents, RAG, evals and guardrails. --mode={code|plan}; --report-only is read-only.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
[Architecture] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for architecture design, compliance review, scalability grading or whole-project audit via --mode={design|review|scalability|full}.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
[Content] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for product/feature ideation with ranked opportunities and validation tests. --mode={roadmap|scope}.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
[Content] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for business viability: Business Model Canvas, financials, risks and go-to-market recommendation.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
[Code Quality] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for a focused code-change review: staged, unstaged, branch diff or simple pull request. --fix-loop fixes and re-reviews. Complex pull request: workflow-review-changes; rationale: why-review.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。