large-file-refactor · diff
git:20261001.35ed137 to git:20261005.4be9b88
9 added, 9 removed. Audit B to B.
---
argument-hint: "[path] [--include-generated]"
coordination: exempt
disable-model-invocation: true
name: large-file-refactor
description:
- Discover large source-file refactor candidates and propose cohesion- and risk-driven split plans using available
+ Discover large source-file refactor candidates and propose split plans based on cohesion and risk, using available
semantic tooling.
---
# Large File Refactor
This skill is coordination-exempt: skip the ai-coord gate for its declared work.
- If these instructions are already present in the conversation from a slash or dollar invocation, follow them directly;
- do not invoke this skill again through a skill tool.
+ If a slash or dollar invocation already added these instructions to the conversation, follow them directly. In that
+ case, do not invoke this skill again through a skill tool.
Use LOC thresholds to discover candidates, then decide whether a split is justified by cohesion, coupling, ownership,
- and change risk. Source files match above 1000 LOC; test files use a relaxed 2000 LOC discovery threshold.
+ and change risk. Source files match above 1000 LOC. Test files use a relaxed 2000 LOC discovery threshold.
## Arguments
- `path`: Optional file or directory to scan. Default: current working directory.
- `--include-generated`: Include generated, vendored, dependency, and build-output paths that are skipped by default.
## Workflow
1. Resolve the skill directory, then run the helper from the target repository:
```sh
uv run "<skill-dir>/scripts/large-file-refactor.py" [path] [--include-generated]
```
2. Preserve the helper's Markdown table as the exhaustive report. Do not omit matching rows, even when the refactor plan
only covers a subset.
3. If the helper reports no threshold matches, stop after the report. A match is a candidate, not proof that the file
should be split.
4. Draft a refactor plan for the 3 largest files only, unless the user explicitly requested another count.
5. For each candidate, rank split value by mixed responsibilities, change frequency/risk, coupling, and testability. Use
- whichever semantic symbol/reference tooling is available; prefer Serena when installed:
+ whichever semantic symbol/reference tooling is available. When Serena is installed, prefer it:
- Inspect symbol overviews, references, imports, and relevant history.
- Use the evidence to choose extraction boundaries, target module names, migration order, and test coverage.
6. This workflow defaults to a report and plan. Implement only when the user's request already authorizes execution or
- the user subsequently approves it; do not require a separate request for an unchanged, already authorized outcome.
+ the user subsequently approves it. Do not require a separate request for an unchanged, already authorized outcome.
## Refactor Plan Format
For each selected file, include:
- Current role: the file's apparent responsibility and why line count is a symptom.
- Semantic pass: the exact symbol/reference/history inspection to run before moving code.
- Split proposal: 2-5 target modules or files with responsibilities.
- Migration order: small, reviewable steps that preserve public behavior.
- Verification: narrow tests, type checks, builds, or smoke checks that prove the split.
Lead each plan with one explicit verdict: `### ✂ Split justified`, `### 🧱 Keep intact`, or
`### ⚠️ Generated — change the generator`. Use a compact evidence table for repeated criteria. When proposing a split,
show the source and target modules as a tree only when it clarifies ownership.
If a selected file is generated or vendored because `--include-generated` was used, plan against the generator, schema,
or upstream source instead of hand-splitting generated output.
## Guard Rails
- - Treat the table as source of truth for size ranking only; rank refactor priority separately.
- - Keep the plan cohesive; do not split solely to reduce line count.
+ - Treat the table as the source of truth for size ranking only. Rank refactor priority separately.
+ - Keep the plan cohesive. Do not split solely to reduce line count.
- Prefer existing project module boundaries and naming conventions.
- - Call out when the helper used its portable LOC estimate instead of `tokei`.
+ - Report when the helper used its portable LOC estimate instead of `tokei`.
## Completion
Complete with the exhaustive threshold report plus evidence-ranked plans only for candidates whose cohesion or change
risk justifies a split. Lead with `### 🔎 Large-file scan — <candidate count>`, state when a large file should remain
intact and why, and surface the portable-LOC fallback as `⚠️ Approximate counts` when used. Keep the helper's exhaustive
table, paths, LOC values, and commands exact and undecorated.