Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

refactor代码重构

Agent Skill

refactor 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

380

周安装

16

GitHub Stars

142

下载量

133
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:refactor(代码重构)
来源仓库:https://github.com/thebushidocollective/han
仓库路径:skills/refactor
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/thebushidocollective/han --skill refactor
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/thebushidocollective/han --skill refactor

简介

refactor 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中快速定位候选结果。

  • 适用于需要根据关键词或任务场景进行信息筛选的场景,如代码重构前的资料准备。
  • 通过关键词输入和来源线索,Agent 可生成结构化候选列表供进一步核验。
  • 安装命令为 npx skills add https://github.com/thebushidocollective/han --skill refactor。
  • 使用前需确认权限范围和维护状态,注意是否触发联网或文件操作。

SKILL.md

Refactoring Skill

Improve code structure and quality while preserving behavior.

Name

han-core:refactor - Restructure code to improve quality without changing behavior

Synopsis

/refactor [arguments]

Core Principle

Tests are your safety net. Never refactor without tests.

The Refactoring Cycle

  1. Ensure tests exist and pass
  2. Make ONE small change
  3. Run tests (must still pass)
  4. Commit (keep changes isolated)
  5. Repeat

Each step must be reversible. If tests fail, revert and try smaller change.

Pre-Refactoring Checklist

STOP if any of these are false:

  • Tests exist for code being refactored
  • All tests currently pass
  • Understand what code does
  • External behavior will remain unchanged
  • Have time to do this properly (not rushing)

If no tests exist:

  1. Add tests first
  2. Verify tests pass
  3. THEN refactor

When to Refactor

Code Smells That Suggest Refactoring

Readability issues:

  • Long functions (> 50 lines)
  • Deep nesting (> 3 levels)
  • Unclear naming
  • Magic numbers
  • Complex conditionals

Maintainability issues:

  • Duplication (same code in multiple places)
  • God classes (too many responsibilities)
  • Feature envy (method uses another class more than its own)
  • Data clumps (same groups of parameters passed around)

Complexity issues:

  • Cyclomatic complexity > 10
  • Too many dependencies
  • Tightly coupled code
  • Difficult to test

When NOT to Refactor

  • No tests exist (add tests first)
  • Under deadline pressure (defer to later)
  • Code works and is readable (don't over-engineer)
  • Changing external behavior (that's not refactoring, that's a feature/fix)
  • Right before release (too risky)

Classic Refactorings

Extract Function

Problem: Function does too many things

// Before: Long function doing multiple things
function processOrder(order: Order) {
  // Validate order
  if (!order.items || order.items.length === 0) {
    throw new Error('Empty order')
  }
  if (!order.customer || !order.customer.email) {
    throw new Error('Invalid customer')
  }

  // Calculate totals
  let subtotal = 0
  for (const item of order.items) {
    subtotal += item.price * item.quantity
  }
  const tax = subtotal * 0.08
  const shipping = subtotal > 50 ? 0 : 9.99
  const total = subtotal + tax + shipping

  // Save to database
  return database.save({
    ...order,
    subtotal,
    tax,
    shipping,
    total
  })
}

// After: Extracted into focused functions
function processOrder(order: Order) {
  validateOrder(order)
  const totals = calculateTotals(order)
  return saveOrder(order, totals)
}

function validateOrder(order: Order): void {
  if (!order.items || order.items.length === 0) {
    throw new Error('Empty order')
  }
  if (!order.customer || !order.customer.email) {
    throw new Error('Invalid customer')
  }
}

function calculateTotals(order: Order) {
  const subtotal = order.items.reduce(
    (sum, item) => sum + item.price * item.quantity,
    0
  )
  const tax = subtotal * 0.08
  const shipping = subtotal > 50 ? 0 : 9.99
  const total = subtotal + tax + shipping

  return { subtotal, tax, shipping, total }
}

function saveOrder(order: Order, totals: Totals) {
  return database.save({ ...order, ...totals })
}

Benefits: Each function has single responsibility, easier to test, easier to understand

Extract Variable

Problem: Complex expression that's hard to understand

// Before: Dense, hard to parse
if (user.age >= 18 && user.country === 'US' && !user.banned && user.verified) {
  // ...
}

// After: Intent is clear
const isAdult = user.age >= 18
const isUSResident = user.country === 'US'
const hasGoodStanding = !user.banned && user.verified
const canPurchase = isAdult && isUSResident && hasGoodStanding

if (canPurchase) {
  // ...
}

Benefits: Self-documenting, easier to debug, easier to modify

Inline Function/Variable

Problem: Unnecessary indirection that doesn't add clarity

// Before: Over-abstraction
function getTotal(order: Order) {
  return calculateTotalAmount(order)
}

function calculateTotalAmount(order: Order) {
  return order.subtotal + order.tax
}

// After: Inline the unnecessary layer
function getTotal(order: Order) {
  return order.subtotal + order.tax
}

When to inline: Abstraction doesn't add value, makes code harder to follow

Rename

Problem: Unclear or misleading names

// Before: Unclear
function proc(d: any) {
  const r = d.x * d.y
  return r
}

// After: Self-explanatory
function calculateArea(dimensions: Dimensions) {
  const area = dimensions.width * dimensions.height
  return area
}

Benefits: Code is self-documenting, no need to guess what variables mean

Replace Magic Number with Named Constant

Problem: Unexplained numbers in code

// Before: What's 0.08? What's 9.99?
const tax = subtotal * 0.08
const shipping = subtotal > 50 ? 0 : 9.99

// After: Clear meaning
const TAX_RATE = 0.08
const FREE_SHIPPING_THRESHOLD = 50
const STANDARD_SHIPPING_COST = 9.99

const tax = subtotal * TAX_RATE
const shipping = subtotal > FREE_SHIPPING_THRESHOLD ? 0 : STANDARD_SHIPPING_COST

Remove Duplication

Problem: Same code in multiple places

// Before: Duplication
function formatUserName(user: User) {
  return `${user.firstName} ${user.lastName}`.trim()
}

function formatAdminName(admin: Admin) {
  return `${admin.firstName} ${admin.lastName}`.trim()
}

function formatAuthorName(author: Author) {
  return `${author.firstName} ${author.lastName}`.trim()
}

// After: One implementation
function formatFullName(person: { firstName: string; lastName: string }) {
  return `${person.firstName} ${person.lastName}`.trim()
}

// Usage
formatFullName(user)
formatFullName(admin)
formatFullName(author)

Simplify Conditional

Problem: Complex nested if/else

// Before: Nested conditionals
function getShippingCost(order: Order) {
  if (order.total > 100) {
    return 0
  } else {
    if (order.items.length > 5) {
      return 5.99
    } else {
      if (order.weight > 10) {
        return 15.99
      } else {
        return 9.99
      }
    }
  }
}

// After: Early returns, flat structure
function getShippingCost(order: Order) {
  if (order.total > 100) return 0
  if (order.items.length > 5) return 5.99
  if (order.weight > 10) return 15.99
  return 9.99
}

// Or: Look-up table
const SHIPPING_RULES = [
  { condition: (o: Order) => o.total > 100, cost: 0 },
  { condition: (o: Order) => o.items.length > 5, cost: 5.99 },
  { condition: (o: Order) => o.weight > 10, cost: 15.99 },
]

function getShippingCost(order: Order) {
  const rule = SHIPPING_RULES.find(r => r.condition(order))
  return rule?.cost ?? 9.99
}

Replace Conditional with Polymorphism

Problem: Type checks scattered throughout code

// Before: Type checking everywhere
function calculatePrice(item: Item) {
  if (item.type === 'book') {
    return item.basePrice * 0.9  // 10% discount
  } else if (item.type === 'electronics') {
    return item.basePrice * 1.15  // 15% markup
  } else if (item.type === 'clothing') {
    return item.basePrice
  }
}

// After: Polymorphism
interface Item {
  calculatePrice(): number
}

class Book implements Item {
  calculatePrice() {
    return this.basePrice * 0.9
  }
}

class Electronics implements Item {
  calculatePrice() {
    return this.basePrice * 1.15
  }
}

class Clothing implements Item {
  calculatePrice() {
    return this.basePrice
  }
}

// Usage: No type checking needed
const price = item.calculatePrice()

Split Function

Problem: Function tries to do too many things

// Before: Does validation, calculation, and saving
function processPayment(payment: Payment) {
  // Validation
  if (!payment.amount || payment.amount <= 0) {
    throw new Error('Invalid amount')
  }
  if (!payment.method) {
    throw new Error('Payment method required')
  }

  // Calculation
  const fee = payment.amount * 0.029 + 0.30
  const total = payment.amount + fee

  // Persistence
  const record = database.save({
    amount: payment.amount,
    fee,
    total,
    method: payment.method,
    timestamp: Date.now()
  })

  // Notification
  notificationService.send({
    user: payment.user,
    message: `Payment of $${total} processed`
  })

  return record
}

// After: Separate concerns
function processPayment(payment: Payment) {
  validatePayment(payment)
  const totals = calculatePaymentTotals(payment)
  const record = savePayment(payment, totals)
  notifyPaymentProcessed(payment.user, totals.total)
  return record
}

Refactoring Golden Rules

Safety first:

  • Tests exist and pass before starting
  • Make one change at a time
  • Run tests after each change
  • Behavior must remain unchanged
  • Commit after each successful refactoring

Refactoring Workflow

Step-by-Step Process

# 1. Ensure tests pass
npm test
# All tests passing

# 2. Make ONE refactoring change
# Example: Extract function

# 3. Run tests immediately
npm test
# Still passing

# 4. Commit with descriptive message
git add .
git commit -m "refactor: extract validateOrder function"

# 5. Repeat for next refactoring
# Make another small change, test, commit

If Tests Fail After Refactoring

# Tests failed after refactoring

# Option 1: Revert and try smaller change
git reset --hard HEAD
# Make smaller, safer change

# Option 2: Debug and fix
# Find what broke
# Fix it
# Run tests again

Refactoring Strategies

The Boy Scout Rule

"Leave code better than you found it"

When touching code for any reason:

  1. Fix obvious issues you see
  2. Improve naming
  3. Extract complex expressions
  4. Add missing tests
  5. Remove commented code

Small improvements accumulate

Preparatory Refactoring

Before adding feature, refactor to make it easy

1. Need to add feature
2. Current code structure makes it hard
3. Refactor first to make space
4. Then add feature in clean code

Quote: "Make the change easy, then make the easy change"

Opportunistic Refactoring

Fix things you notice while working

  • Fixing bug? Clean up surrounding code
  • Adding feature? Improve structure
  • Reading code? Fix confusing names

Planned Refactoring

Dedicated time to improve code health

  • Tech debt tickets
  • Refactoring sprints
  • Clean-up sessions

Refactoring Safety Checklist

Before every change:

  • Tests exist
  • Tests pass
  • Understand what code does

After every change:

  • Tests still pass
  • No functionality changed
  • Code is clearer
  • Ready to commit

If tests fail:

  • Understand why
  • Fix or revert
  • Never commit broken tests

Common Refactoring Pitfalls

Refactoring Without Tests

Risk: Change behavior without noticing

Solution: Add tests first, then refactor

Too Many Changes at Once

Risk: Hard to debug if something breaks

Solution: One refactoring at a time, commit frequently

Changing Behavior

Risk: It's not refactoring if behavior changes

Solution: Tests must still pass, functionality unchanged

Over-Engineering

Risk: More complex after "refactoring"

Solution: Simpler is better, don't add unnecessary abstraction

Refactoring Under Pressure

Risk: Mistakes due to rushing

Solution: Defer to when you have time to do it right

Measuring Refactoring Success

Good refactoring results in:

  • Easier to understand
  • Easier to modify
  • Easier to test
  • Fewer lines of code (usually)
  • Lower complexity
  • Same or better performance
  • All tests still pass

If any test fails, it wasn't successful refactoring

Output Format

After refactoring:

## Refactoring: [Brief description]

### Before
[Description of code smell or issue]

### Changes Made
- [Change 1 with reasoning]
- [Change 2 with reasoning]
- [Change 3 with reasoning]

### After
[How the code is better now]

### Verification
[Evidence that behavior unchanged - use proof-of-work skill]
- All tests pass: [test output]
- No functionality changed
- Code is more [readable/maintainable/simple]

Examples

When the user says:

  • "This function is too long and hard to understand"
  • "Clean up this messy code"
  • "Remove duplication between these modules"
  • "Simplify this nested if/else logic"
  • "Break this god class into smaller pieces"

Tools

Automated refactoring tools:

  • IDE refactoring commands (safe)
  • Rename variable/function (safe)
  • Extract method (safe)
  • Move file (safe)

Manual refactoring:

  • Make small changes
  • Test frequently
  • Commit after each change
  • Use version control as safety net

Integration with Other Skills

  • boy-scout-rule - Leave code better than found
  • simplicity-principles - KISS, YAGNI, simple is better
  • solid-principles - Single Responsibility, etc.
  • structural-design-principles - Composition, encapsulation
  • test-driven-development - Add tests if missing
  • proof-of-work - Verify tests still pass
  • code-review - Review refactored code

Remember

  1. Tests first - No refactoring without tests
  2. Small steps - One change at a time
  3. Test after each step - Must stay green
  4. Commit frequently - Each safe change gets a commit
  5. Behavior unchanged - If behavior changes, it's not refactoring

Refactoring is about improving structure without changing what the code does.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

36.02%
按下载量换算48

Claude

31%
按下载量换算41

Cursor

17.14%
按下载量换算23

Gemini CLI

8.39%
按下载量换算11

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills