Verifying Refactors
Overview
Verifying refactors IS proving the refactor made the codebase better by measurable rules, not vibes.
Run the same toolchain as analyzing-codebases, on the post-refactor state. Compare before/after. Every hard rule must hold or the refactor is not done. Mutation test touched modules to confirm characterization tests actually assert.
Core principle: A refactor that reduces complexity on paper but fails hard rules is a regression.
Routing
Pattern: Chain
Handoff: user-confirmation
Next: finalizing-refactors
Task Initialization (MANDATORY)
- Subject:
[verifying-refactors] Task N: <action>
Tasks:
- Run post-refactor toolchain
- Check hard rules
- Run mutation testing on touched modules
- Produce verification report
- Present to user
Task 1: Post-refactor toolchain
Rerun the same tools as analyzing-codebases on current (refactored) state. Save outputs to .rcc/aref-raw/{ts}-post-*.json (distinct from pre-refactor *-pre-*.json if you want to rename original outputs; else use new timestamp).
Task 2: Hard rules
Per references/hard-rules.md, check each rule. Any failure → STOP, do not proceed to mutation testing, report failure.
Rules:
- Cyclic deps count = 0
- No file > 300 lines (warning if between 250-300)
- No function > 50 lines
- Cognitive complexity max ≤ 15
- Cyclomatic complexity max ≤ 10
- Single-entry per module (barrel-at-boundary only)
Task 3: Mutation testing
Per references/mutation-testing.md. Run mutation tool ONLY on modules touched by the refactor (derived from git diff since branch point). Global mutation runs are out of scope.
Record mutation score (killed/total). Survivors >20% → flag weak-tests in report but do not block.
Task 4: Report
Write .rcc/{ts}-verification-report.md:
# Verification Report {ts}
## Hard Rules
| Rule | Before | After | Pass/Fail |
|------|--------|-------|-----------|
| Cyclic deps | 3 | 0 | PASS |
| Max file LOC | 820 | 298 | PASS |
| ...
## Mutation Testing
| Module | Mutants | Killed | Score | Flag |
|--------|---------|--------|-------|------|
| src/auth/token.ts | 48 | 41 | 85% | |
| src/auth/middleware.ts | 32 | 20 | 63% | weak-tests |
## Delta vs Pre-refactor
- Hotspot count: -3
- Duplication clusters: -2
- AGENTS.md gaps: unchanged (handled by finalizing)
## Decision
PASS / FAIL-HARD-RULES / PASS-WITH-WEAK-TESTS
Task 5: Present
Print report summary. Ask user:
- PASS →
continueto finalizing-refactors - FAIL →
rollback last phase/replan failing target/abort - WEAK-TESTS →
continue/scaffold more tests/accept and continue
Red Flags - STOP
- Running mutation on whole codebase (scope is touched modules only)
- Skipping hard rules because "tests are green"
- Reporting PASS when any hard rule failed
- Using coverage % as a hard rule (research: gameable metric)
Common Rationalizations
| Thought | Reality | |---------|---------| | "Coverage is 85%, skip mutation" | Coverage measures execution, not assertion. Mutation validates asserts. | | "Warnings are fine, not FAIL" | Warning ≠ FAIL but IS recorded. User decides acceptance. | | "Cognitive complexity 16 is close enough" | Hard rule is hard. Negotiate in plan, not in verify. |
References
references/hard-rules.mdreferences/mutation-testing.md