mcpField
D
deep-module-refactor

deep-module-refactor

github.com/zebbernDevelopment4.7k42 installsUpdated 1d ago
Repository

About deep-module-refactor

deep-module-refactor is a codebase architecture skill for identifying tightly coupled or hard-to-test areas and developing module-deepening refactor ideas. It compares multiple interface designs and turns a selected direction into a GitHub issue RFC.

Key features

  1. 01Organic codebase exploration
  2. 02Identification of architectural friction
  3. 03Comparison of distinct interface designs
  4. 04Assessment of test impact and trade-offs
  5. 05GitHub issue RFC creation

Use cases

  1. 01Finding hard-to-test code areas
  2. 02Planning a module-boundary refactor
  3. 03Comparing interface options for coupled code

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide --skill deep-module-refactor

After installing, type/deep-module-refactorin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled filesLICENSEREFERENCE.md

Details

From the project README

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 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)
  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. Do NOT ask the user to review before creating — just create it and share the URL.

Comments

Markdown supported