name: refactor description: Analyze code and suggest refactoring opportunities with blast radius assessment, risk evaluation, and recommended order of operations

Refactor

Agent Delegation

You MUST delegate the assessment of system-wide dependencies and long-term architectural impact of refactoring choices to the software-architect sub-agent.

When to Use

• Reviewing code for improvement opportunities
• Planning a refactoring initiative
• Assessing technical debt in a codebase area
• Evaluating complexity, duplication, or coupling concerns
• Understanding blast radius before making changes

Input

• Target: file path, directory/package, or function/component name
• Optional: specific concern (duplication, complexity, coupling, testability, etc.)

Investigation Strategy

Track 1: Codebase Exploration

• Map dependencies and call sites for target code
• Identify blast radius of potential changes
• Find related code with similar patterns
• Assess test coverage of affected areas

Track 2: Code Analysis

• Deep analysis of code smells and patterns
• Identify refactoring opportunities
• Assess complexity metrics
• Evaluate maintainability concerns

Refactoring Patterns

Universal Patterns

Go-Specific Patterns

Frontend-Specific Patterns

Output

Document the analysis using the template at references/templates/refactor-analysis.md.

Path Logic:

1. Identify Project Name: Use the BEADS_PROJECT_NAME env var or the current directory name.
2. Construct Path: working/<project-name>/refactor/<target-name>/analysis.md (Sanitize <target-name> to be filesystem-friendly, e.g., pkg-auth-handler)

The analysis should include:

• Code smells identified with locations
• Suggested refactorings with risk assessment
• Blast radius for each change
• Recommended order of operations
• Test coverage assessment

Constraints

• Analysis only: Do not execute refactorings - document recommendations
• Blast radius required: Every suggestion must include affected files/functions
• Risk assessment required: Every suggestion must be rated Low/Medium/High
• Order matters: Recommend sequence based on risk and dependencies
• Test awareness: Note test coverage and impact for each suggestion
• OBSIDIAN ANALYSIS: Refactor analysis documents MUST be saved to Obsidian using obsidian_create_note.
• LOCAL FILESYSTEM RESTRICTION: Do not use local filesystem write tools (write_file, etc.) for documentation or analysis reports.

Example

Refactoring Analysis: pkg/auth/handler.go

Target:
- Path: pkg/auth/handler.go
- Scope: file
- Concern: complexity

Summary:
The auth handler has grown to 450 lines with 3 code smells identified.
Recommend extracting token validation and session management into
separate services. Low-risk changes that improve testability.

Code Smells Identified:

1. Long Function (validateAndCreateSession)
   - Location: handler.go:145-280
   - Description: 135-line function handling validation, session
     creation, and response formatting
   - Impact: Hard to test, multiple responsibilities

2. Feature Envy (token validation)
   - Location: handler.go:156-198
   - Description: Handler reaches into token package internals
   - Impact: Tight coupling, changes ripple across packages

Suggested Refactorings:

1. Extract TokenValidator service
   - Type: Extract
   - Target: handler.go:156-198
   - Rationale: Encapsulates token validation logic
   - Blast Radius: handler.go, handler_test.go
   - Risk: Low — isolated logic, good test coverage
   - Test Impact: Add TokenValidator unit tests

2. Extract SessionManager service
   - Type: Extract
   - Target: handler.go:200-250
   - Rationale: Separates session concerns from HTTP handling
   - Blast Radius: handler.go, session.go, handler_test.go
   - Risk: Medium — touches session storage
   - Test Impact: Update integration tests

Recommended Order:
1. TokenValidator first (lowest risk, no dependencies)
2. SessionManager second (depends on cleaner handler)

Begin by identifying the target code and any specific concerns to focus on.