Agent-Skills.md

Agent Skills: Code Refinement Workflow

'Analyze and improve living code quality: duplication, algorithmic efficiency,

UncategorizedID: athola/claude-night-market/code-refinement

Repository

athola/claude-night-market
atholaLicense: MIT
23423

Install this agent skill to your local

pnpm dlx add-skill https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market/tree/HEAD/plugins/pensive/skills/code-refinement

Skill Files

Browse the full folder contents for code-refinement.

Download Skill

Loading file tree…

plugins/pensive/skills/code-refinement/SKILL.md

Skill Metadata

Name
code-refinement
Description
'Improve code quality across duplication, efficiency, and architectural fit.'

Table of Contents

Code Refinement Workflow

Analyze and improve living code quality across six dimensions.

Quick Start

/refine-code
/refine-code --level 2 --focus duplication
/refine-code --level 3 --report refinement-plan.md

When To Use

  • After rapid AI-assisted development sprints
  • Before major releases (quality gate)
  • When code "works but smells"
  • Refactoring existing modules for clarity
  • Reducing technical debt in living code

When NOT To Use

  • Removing dead/unused code (use conserve:bloat-detector)

Analysis Dimensions

| # | Dimension | Module | What It Catches | |---|-----------|--------|----------------| | 1 | Duplication & Redundancy | duplication-analysis | Near-identical blocks, similar functions, copy-paste | | 2 | Algorithmic Efficiency | algorithm-efficiency | O(n^2) where O(n) works, unnecessary iterations | | 3 | Clean Code Violations | clean-code-checks | Long methods, deep nesting, poor naming, magic values | | 4 | Architectural Fit | architectural-fit | Paradigm mismatches, coupling violations, leaky abstractions | | 5 | Anti-Slop Patterns | clean-code-checks | Premature abstraction, enterprise cosplay, hollow patterns | | 6 | Error Handling | clean-code-checks | Bare excepts, swallowed errors, happy-path-only | | 7 | Additive Bias | imbue:justify | Workarounds over root fixes, test tampering, unnecessary additions |

Plugin-Specific Patterns

Detection patterns for plugin and skill codebases where standard code quality heuristics miss structural issues.

Delegation Stub Bodies

A skill that declares "delegates to X" but still carries the full template body is doing double duty. The delegating skill should be a thin wrapper (under 30 lines) that routes to the target. Flag any delegating skill whose body exceeds 50 lines.

Module Explosion

Flag skills with 10+ module files where 40% or more of content overlaps. Signal: two modules covering the same API surface from different angles (e.g., both describing the same config options or the same CLI flags).

Oversized Single Modules

Flag individual module files exceeding 500 lines as candidates for splitting or trimming. Large modules defeat progressive loading by forcing full-file reads for partial information.

Dead Python References

Skills referencing Python commands (python -m module.name or python -c "from module import ...") where the referenced module does not exist in the plugin's src/ directory. These are stale references to renamed or removed code.

Progressive Loading

Load modules based on refinement focus:

  • modules/duplication-analysis.md (~400 tokens): Duplication detection and consolidation
  • modules/algorithm-efficiency.md (~400 tokens): Complexity analysis and optimization
  • modules/clean-code-checks.md (~450 tokens): Clean code, anti-slop, error handling
  • modules/architectural-fit.md (~400 tokens): Paradigm alignment and coupling

Load all for comprehensive refinement. For focused work, load only relevant modules.

Required TodoWrite Items

  1. refine:context-established — Scope, language, framework detection
  2. refine:scan-complete — Findings across all dimensions
  3. refine:prioritized — Findings ranked by impact and effort
  4. refine:plan-generated — Concrete refactoring plan with before/after
  5. refine:evidence-captured — Evidence appendix per imbue:proof-of-work
  6. refine:execution-complete — All wave-listed candidates closed-or-rationale'd (only required when invocation includes "execute findings" or stronger; see Step 6)

Workflow

Step 1: Establish Context (refine:context-established)

Detect project characteristics:

# Language detection
find . -not -path "*/.venv/*" -not -path "*/__pycache__/*" \
  -not -path "*/node_modules/*" -not -path "*/.git/*" \
  \( -name "*.py" -o -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.rs" -o -name "*.go" \) \
  | head -20

# Framework detection
ls package.json pyproject.toml Cargo.toml go.mod 2>/dev/null

# Size assessment
find . -not -path "*/.venv/*" -not -path "*/__pycache__/*" \
  -not -path "*/node_modules/*" -not -path "*/.git/*" \
  \( -name "*.py" -o -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.rs" \) \
  | xargs wc -l 2>/dev/null | tail -1

Step 2: Dimensional Scan (refine:scan-complete)

Load relevant modules and execute analysis per tier level. For dimension 7 (Additive Bias), run Skill(imbue:justify) to compute the bias score, check Iron Law compliance, and flag unnecessary additions or workarounds.

Step 3: Prioritize (refine:prioritized)

Rank findings by:

  • Impact: How much quality improves (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
  • Effort: Lines changed, files touched (SMALL/MEDIUM/LARGE)
  • Risk: Likelihood of introducing bugs (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH)

Priority = HIGH impact + SMALL effort + LOW risk first.

Step 4: Generate Plan (refine:plan-generated)

For each finding, produce:

  • File path and line range
  • Current code snippet
  • Proposed improvement
  • Rationale (which principle/dimension)
  • Estimated effort

Step 5: Evidence Capture (refine:evidence-captured)

Document with imbue:proof-of-work (if available):

  • [E1], [E2] references for each finding
  • Metrics before/after where measurable
  • Principle violations cited

Fallback: If imbue is not installed, capture evidence inline in the report using the same [E1] reference format without TodoWrite integration.

Step 6: Execute Findings (refine:execution-complete)

Steps 1-5 produce a plan. Steps 6 produces closures. Both are part of the skill — execution does not stop at planning unless the user explicitly says "plan only".

Execution mode detection

Match the user's invocation phrasing against this table to determine execution scope:

| User said | Mode | Stop when | |---|---|---| | /code-refinement (no qualifier) | Plan only | After Step 5 | | --dry-run or "just plan" | Plan only | After Step 5 | | "execute findings" / "apply fixes" | Plan + execute Wave 1 | After all SMALL-effort + LOW-risk findings closed | | "execute all findings" / "all phases" / "all waves" | Plan + execute every wave | After every finding (or every wave-listed candidate) is either closed by commit or has explicit per-item rationale in the synthesis | | "ignore scope guard" | Override branch-size limits | Branch metrics do not gate execution. Continue past RED zone. | | "do not stop until complete" / "until ALL ... complete" | No mid-task summaries | Only declare done when synthesis has every wave-listed candidate closed-or-rationale'd |

The triggers compose: --tier 3 --execute all findings --ignore-scope-guard means run every Wave 2 + Wave 3 candidate to closure regardless of branch size.

Completion gate (when execution mode is active)

The task is not complete until ALL of the following hold:

  1. Wave 2 candidates (medium-effort, listed in synthesis "Wave 2 Candidates" section): every entry has either a closure commit or an explicit per-item line in the synthesis stating why it is not viable.
  2. Wave 3 candidates (large-effort, listed in synthesis "Wave 3 Candidates" section): same gate. Do not pre-emptively defer LARGE-effort items with generic "needs dedicated PR" rationale when the user said "execute all" — execute the mechanical ones (split-by-class, mixin-package, module-merge) and reserve "deferred" only for items requiring architecture-level decisions (schema changes, new dependency declarations, new venv layouts).
  3. Synthesis updated: docs/refinement/<date>/00-synthesis.md records every closure with its commit SHA and every deferral with one-sentence rationale.

Anti-pattern detector for the agent itself

If the model finds itself doing any of the following during execution, this is a stop-hook leak — go back to executing findings:

| Anti-pattern | Recognise as | |---|---| | "Wave 2 closed. Moving to Wave 3." (mid-run summary) | Premature turn-completion signal — keep working | | "Documenting deferred items with rationale" before all mechanical items are done | Skipping execution under a paper trail | | Writing a completion summary while >0 listed candidates lack closure-or-rationale | Violation of completion gate | | Re-asking user "should I continue?" when invocation included "do not stop" | Ignoring the explicit no-mid-task-summary contract |

If the harness fires a stop signal mid-execution and the completion gate is not met, immediately resume with the next finding.

Tiered Analysis

| Tier | Time | Scope | |------|------|-------| | 1: Quick (default) | 2-5 min | Complexity hotspots, obvious duplication, naming, magic values | | 2: Targeted | 10-20 min | Algorithm analysis, full duplication scan, architectural alignment | | 3: Deep | 30-60 min | All above + cross-module coupling, paradigm fitness, comprehensive plan |

Cross-Plugin Dependencies

| Dependency | Required? | Fallback | |------------|-----------|----------| | pensive:shared | Yes | Core review patterns | | imbue:proof-of-work | Optional | Inline evidence in report | | conserve:code-quality-principles | Optional | Built-in KISS/YAGNI/SOLID checks | | archetypes:architecture-paradigms | Optional | Principle-based checks only (no paradigm detection) |

Supporting Modules

When optional plugins are not installed, the skill degrades gracefully:

  • Without imbue: Evidence captured inline, no TodoWrite proof-of-work
  • Without conserve: Uses built-in clean code checks (subset)
  • Without archetypes: Skips paradigm-specific alignment, uses coupling/cohesion principles only