mirror of
https://github.com/mattpocock/skills.git
synced 2026-04-30 22:13:54 +07:00
Matt Pocock
d1beb4fe61
- Renamed 4 skill directories to remove -user suffix (improve-codebase-architecture, prd-to-issues, prd-to-plan, write-a-prd) - Added frontmatter (name + description) to 5 skills that were missing it (grill-me, prd-to-issues, scaffold-exercises, obsidian-vault, write-a-prd) - Improved vague descriptions on edit-article and request-refactor-plan Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
77 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
77 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: improve-codebase-architecture
|
|
description: Explore a codebase to find opportunities for architectural improvement, focusing on making the codebase more testable by deepening shallow modules. Use when user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more AI-navigable.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Improve Codebase Architecture
|
|
|
|
Explore a codebase like an AI would, surface architectural friction, discover opportunities for improving testability, and propose module-deepening refactors as GitHub issue RFCs.
|
|
|
|
A **deep module** (John Ousterhout, "A Philosophy of Software Design") has a small interface hiding a large implementation. Deep modules are more testable, more AI-navigable, and let you test at the boundary instead of inside.
|
|
|
|
## Process
|
|
|
|
### 1. Explore the codebase
|
|
|
|
Use the Agent tool with subagent_type=Explore to navigate the codebase naturally. Do NOT follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:
|
|
|
|
- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small files?
|
|
- Where are modules so shallow that the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation?
|
|
- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called?
|
|
- Where do tightly-coupled modules create integration risk in the seams between them?
|
|
- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test?
|
|
|
|
The friction you encounter IS the signal.
|
|
|
|
### 2. Present candidates
|
|
|
|
Present a numbered list of deepening opportunities. For each candidate, show:
|
|
|
|
- **Cluster**: Which modules/concepts are involved
|
|
- **Why they're coupled**: Shared types, call patterns, co-ownership of a concept
|
|
- **Dependency category**: See [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) for the four categories
|
|
- **Test impact**: What existing tests would be replaced by boundary tests
|
|
|
|
Do NOT propose interfaces yet. Ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
|
|
|
|
### 3. User picks a candidate
|
|
|
|
### 4. Frame the problem space
|
|
|
|
Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:
|
|
|
|
- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
|
|
- The dependencies it would need to rely on
|
|
- A rough illustrative code sketch to make the constraints concrete — this is not a proposal, just a way to ground the constraints
|
|
|
|
Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 5. The user reads and thinks about the problem while the sub-agents work in parallel.
|
|
|
|
### 5. Design multiple interfaces
|
|
|
|
Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel using the Agent tool. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module.
|
|
|
|
Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category, what's being hidden). This brief is independent of the user-facing explanation in Step 4. Give each agent a different design constraint:
|
|
|
|
- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1-3 entry points max"
|
|
- Agent 2: "Maximize flexibility — support many use cases and extension"
|
|
- Agent 3: "Optimize for the most common caller — make the default case trivial"
|
|
- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around the ports & adapters pattern for cross-boundary dependencies"
|
|
|
|
Each sub-agent outputs:
|
|
|
|
1. Interface signature (types, methods, params)
|
|
2. Usage example showing how callers use it
|
|
3. What complexity it hides internally
|
|
4. Dependency strategy (how deps are handled — see [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md))
|
|
5. Trade-offs
|
|
|
|
Present designs sequentially, then compare them in prose.
|
|
|
|
After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not just a menu.
|
|
|
|
### 6. User picks an interface (or accepts recommendation)
|
|
|
|
### 7. Create GitHub issue
|
|
|
|
Create a refactor RFC as a GitHub issue using `gh issue create`. Use the template in [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md). Do NOT ask the user to review before creating — just create it and share the URL.
|