agent coding skill risk: low
Refactor Plan Interviewer and GitHub Issue Creator
Interviews the user about a desired refactor, explores the repository, defines scope and tiny commits, checks test coverage, and files a detailed GitHub issue using the provided te…
- External action: high
SKILL 1 file
SKILL.md
--- name: request-refactor-plan description: "Create a detailed refactor plan with tiny commits via user interview, then file it as a GitHub issue. Use when user wants to plan a refactor, create a refactoring RFC, or break a refactor into safe incremental steps." --- This skill will be invoked when the user wants to create a refactor request. You should go through the steps below. You may skip steps if you don't consider them necessary. 1. Ask the user for a long, detailed description of the problem they want to solve and any potential ideas for solutions. 2. Explore the repo to verify their assertions and understand the current state of the codebase. 3. Ask whether they have considered other options, and present other options to them. 4. Interview the user about the implementation. Be extremely detailed and thorough. 5. Hammer out the exact scope of the implementation. Work out what you plan to change and what you plan not to change. 6. Look in the codebase to check for test coverage of this area of the codebase. If there is insufficient test coverage, ask the user what their plans for testing are. 7. Break the implementation into a plan of tiny commits. Remember Martin Fowler's advice to "make each refactoring step as small as possible, so that you can always see the program working." 8. Create a GitHub issue with the refactor plan. Use the following template for the issue description: <refactor-plan-template> ## Problem Statement The problem that the developer is facing, from the developer's perspective. ## Solution The solution to the problem, from the developer's perspective. ## Commits A LONG, detailed implementation plan. Write the plan in plain English, breaking down the implementation into the tiniest commits possible. Each commit should leave the codebase in a working state. ## Decision Document A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include: - The modules that will be built/modified - The interfaces of those modules that will be modified - Technical clarifications from the developer - Architectural decisions - Schema changes - API contracts - Specific interactions Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets. They may end up being outdated very quickly. ## Testing Decisions A list of testing decisions that were made. Include: - A description of what makes a good test (only test external behavior, not implementation details) - Which modules will be tested - Prior art for the tests (i.e. similar types of tests in the codebase) ## Out of Scope A description of the things that are out of scope for this refactor. ## Further Notes (optional) Any further notes about the refactor. </refactor-plan-template>
REQUIRED CONTEXT
- user description of the problem and solution ideas
- access to explore the codebase
ROLES & RULES
- You may skip steps if you don't consider them necessary.
- Be extremely detailed and thorough.
- Each commit should leave the codebase in a working state.
- Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets.
EXPECTED OUTPUT
- Format
- markdown
- Schema
- markdown_sections · Problem Statement, Solution, Commits, Decision Document, Testing Decisions, Out of Scope, Further Notes (optional)
- Constraints
- follow the exact refactor-plan-template structure for the final GitHub issue
- break implementation into tiniest possible working commits
- exclude specific file paths and code snippets from Decision Document
SUCCESS CRITERIA
- Follow the 8 steps in order
- Produce a GitHub issue using the exact template
- Break implementation into tiny commits that keep the codebase working
CAVEATS
- Dependencies
- Requires access to the repository codebase
- Requires interactive user responses
- Ambiguities
- "You may skip steps if you don't consider them necessary" does not specify criteria for skipping.
- "Be extremely detailed and thorough" is subjective without measurable criteria.
QUALITY
- OVERALL
- 0.80
- CLARITY
- 0.85
- SPECIFICITY
- 0.78
- REUSABILITY
- 0.88
- COMPLETENESS
- 0.72
IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS
- Add explicit criteria or examples for when steps may be skipped.
- Specify the exact mechanism or tool for creating the GitHub issue (e.g., API call format).
USAGE
Copy the prompt above and paste it into your AI of choice — Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or anywhere else you're working. Replace any placeholder sections with your own context, then ask for the output.
MORE FOR AGENT
- Rapid App MVP Prototyperagentcoding
- AI-First Design Handoff Specs Generatoragentcoding
- Test-Driven Development Workflow Rulesagentcoding
- Structured Autonomy Implementation Agentagentcoding
- PROGRESS.md Manager for Agentic Codingagentcoding
- Hard Bug Diagnosis Disciplineagentcoding
- Git Development Branch Finisheragentcoding
- Code Review Feedback Reception Protocolagentcoding
- Systematic Debugging Process Guideagentcoding
- Matplotlib Python Plotting Guideagentcoding
- LaTeX Paper PDF Compileragentcoding
- Full Output Enforcement for Code Generationagentcoding
- PyTorch Geometric GNN Implementation Guideagentcoding
- Premium React UI Design Architectagentcoding
- Astropy Python Astronomy Library Guideagentcoding
- Book SFT Style Transfer Pipelineagentcoding
- Event Sourcing and CQRS Architectagentcoding
- FluidSim Python CFD Simulation Guideagentcoding
- NetworkX Python Graph Analysis Toolkitagentcoding
- Phase-Gated Debugging Protocol Enforceragentcoding
- SimPy Discrete-Event Simulation Guideagentcoding
- Phase-Gated Code Debugging Protocolagentcoding
- Biopython Molecular Biology Toolkit Guideagentcoding
- Haskell Advanced Type Systems Expertagentcoding
- Anime.js Complex Animation Workflowagentcoding