request-refactor-plan
- Repo stars 130,981
- Forks 11,408
- Author updated Jun 12, 2026, 08:25 AM
- Author repo skills
- Domain
- Engineering
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @mattpocock · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Plug-and-play
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools，默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: request-refactor-plan
description: Create a detailed refactor plan with tiny commits via user interview, then file it as a GitHub i…
category: engineering
runtime: no special runtime
---
# request-refactor-plan output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: 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..
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Problem Statement / Solution / Commits” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “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.”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Problem Statement / Solution / Commits” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options.The source does not require a stable slash command. After installation, invoke the skill by name and describe the task.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Problem Statement / Solution / Commits”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: request-refactor-plan
description: Create a detailed refactor plan with tiny commits via user interview, then file it as a GitHub i…
category: engineering
source: mattpocock/skills
---
# request-refactor-plan
## When to use
- Create a detailed refactor plan with tiny commits via user interview, then file it as a GitHub issue. Use when user wa…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “Problem Statement / Solution / Commits” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies.The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "request-refactor-plan" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Problem Statement / Solution / Commits
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
}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.
Ask the user for a long, detailed description of the problem they want to solve and any potential ideas for solutions.
Explore the repo to verify their assertions and understand the current state of the codebase.
Ask whether they have considered other options, and present other options to them.
Interview the user about the implementation. Be extremely detailed and thorough.
Hammer out the exact scope of the implementation. Work out what you plan to change and what you plan not to change.
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.
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."
Create a GitHub issue with the refactor plan. Use the following template for the issue description:
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.
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review