本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

code-simplification

Simplify application code for clarity without changing behavior — refactor after tests pass, reduce nesting and duplication, match project conventions. Load when refactoring for readability, cleaning up after a feature ships, or when code review flags complexity. Also triggers on "simplify this code", "code simplification", "make this easier to read", "reduce complexity", "refactor for clarity". Not for compress/split/prune-skill (skill-library files). Pairs with technical-debt-audit.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(4)

  • SKILL.md5.5 KB
  • references/examples.md1.9 KB
  • references/simplification-patterns.md1.9 KB
  • references/simplify-ignore.md1.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Code Simplification

You reduce application-code complexity while preserving exact behavior. Goal: faster comprehension for the next reader — not fewer lines for its own sake.

Hard Rules

Never change observable behavior — same inputs, outputs, errors, side effects, ordering. Run tests after each simplification; revert if tests fail or need changing to pass. Default scope: code touched in the current task — no drive-by refactors unless asked. Separate refactoring commits from feature/bugfix commits. Do not simplify code you do not understand — read callers, tests, and blame first.

500 lines touched → prefer codemods/AST tools over manual edits. Protected blocks (simplify-ignore-start / end) must stay hidden — wire hooks/simplify-ignore.sh in Claude Code or read references/simplify-ignore.md.


Workflow

Step 0 — Optional: protect hot paths (Claude Code)

If simplifying code with annotated simplify-ignore blocks, register hooks from hooks/SIMPLIFY-IGNORE.md before reads/edits. Crash recovery: echo '{}' | bash hooks/simplify-ignore.sh.

Step 1 — Understand (Chesterton's Fence)

Before changing anything, answer:

  • What is this code's responsibility? Who calls it?
  • What edge cases and error paths exist?
  • Do tests define expected behavior?
  • Why might it look this way? (performance, platform, history)

If you cannot answer, read more context — do not simplify yet.

Step 2 — Identify opportunities

Scan for structural complexity, naming issues, redundancy — see references/simplification-patterns.md for the signal table.

Step 3 — Apply incrementally

For each change: edit → run test suite → commit or continue. One simplification per commit when possible.

Step 4 — Verify the whole

  • Is the result genuinely easier to understand?
  • Consistent with project conventions (AGENTS.md, neighboring files)?
  • Diff reviewable with no unrelated changes?
  • If "simplified" code is harder to read, revert.

When NOT to use

  • Code already clear — don't simplify for sport
  • Performance-critical path where simpler code is measurably slower
  • About to delete/rewrite the module entirely
  • Skill-library SKILL.md files — use compress-skill / split-skill instead

Gotchas

  • Simplification that requires test changes usually changed behavior.
  • Inlining a well-named helper hurts readability.
  • Fewer lines ≠ simpler (nested ternaries prove this).
  • Mixed refactor + feature PRs are hard to review and revert.

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"It works, don't touch it"Hard-to-read working code is expensive on every future fix.
"Fewer lines is always simpler"Comprehension speed matters, not line count.
"I'll simplify unrelated code too"Unscoped diffs risk regressions outside the task.
"Types make it self-documenting"Types show structure; names show intent.
"Refactor while adding the feature"Split PRs — mixed changes hide bugs.

Output Format

## Code simplification — [scope]

Before: [brief complexity summary]
Changes: [numbered list]
Tests: [command] → [pass/fail]
Commits: [advised messages]
Reverted: [any attempts that failed verification]

Examples

<examples> <example> <input>This handler has four levels of nesting after the feature landed; tests pass.</input> <output> Read tests + callers. Extract guard clauses (one commit, tests green). Rename `data` → `orderPayload` (second commit). Stop — out of scope for unrelated modules. </output> </example> </examples>

Verification

  • All existing tests pass without modification
  • Build/lint clean; no new warnings
  • Each change is incremental and reviewable
  • Scope limited to task-related files (unless user broadened)
  • No error handling removed or weakened
  • Simplified code matches project conventions

Red Flags

  • Simplification required test changes that alter behavior
  • Well-named helper inlined for fewer lines only
  • Nested ternaries introduced to reduce line count
  • Refactor bundled unrelated behavior changes

Reference Files

  • references/simplification-patterns.md: Pattern signal table — read at Step 2.
  • references/simplify-ignore.md: Block protection hooks + annotation syntax — read when code has simplify-ignore markers.
  • hooks/SIMPLIFY-IGNORE.md: Full setup, examples, limitations (repo root).

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-04

  • No changes — citation audit passed; content current (improve-skills full pass 2026-07-04)

Impact Report

Scope: [files] | Simplifications: N | Tests: [pass/fail]
Reverts: N | Separate refactor commit: [yes/no]

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Design execution structure for decomposed processes: single agent or multi-agent topology. Load when user says "design an agent for this", "what agent structure do I need", "architect this", "should this be multi-agent", "what's the right execution structure", "agent topology", "how should agents be organized". Takes process-decomposer output as primary input. If triggered directly without a process entry, calls process-decomposer first.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Internal skill. Called by setup-evaluation after a PASS. Launches agents from a validated architecture spec using Claude Code / Ampcode native parallelism (Task tool). Does NOT generate scripts or SDK code — it outputs structured spawn instructions that the platform executes natively. Never invoked directly by the user. Never launches without a setup-evaluation PASS.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Sync library skills from an agent-loom upstream repo into this project's .agents/skills while preserving project-local and forked skills. Load when the user asks to sync agent-loom, update skills from upstream, rsync from ../agent-loom, pull new library skills, upgrade installed skills, or refresh the .agents folder without losing custom project skills. Also triggers on "sync skills from agent-loom", "update my agent skills", "pull skill library updates", or "merge agent-loom improvements into this repo".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Instrument a shipped product's AI agents with tracing and observability so you can see what they did, why outputs happened, and what each run cost. Plain-language primer plus free-tier-first backend selection (Langfuse, Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust) and OpenTelemetry/OpenInference instrumentation. Load when the user asks to add observability, add tracing, instrument my agents, see what my agent is doing in production, set up Langfuse or Phoenix or LangSmith, debug why my agent gave a bad answer, or track LLM cost per request. Also fires when agent-system-architecture or setup-evaluation requires an observability plan for an agent-chain product. NOT for tracing the coding agent itself — that is run-trace. Precondition for runtime-learning-loop.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Run a structured retrospective after development-phase runs of your product's agents — interview the owner in plain language about what went well and poorly, draft ranked improvement hypotheses, then design and run small n=1/n=2 experiments with pre-declared success criteria, guardrails, stop conditions, and a cost/ROI kill-switch. Load when the user says how did that run go, retro this run, the agent output was bad, what should we improve, draft hypotheses, run a small experiment, or after repeated dev runs of an agentic system produce uneven quality. Priority: output quality over performance over cost, each with diminishing-returns stops. NOT a product A/B test (experimentation), NOT coding-agent harness repair (harness-evolution), NOT production-scale learning (runtime-learning-loop).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

dvy1987 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する