deep-module-refactor skill
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.
Is the deep-module-refactor skill safe?
Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 3 files in the folder on 2026-09-28.
No findings.
Install the deep-module-refactor skill
A skill is a folder. Copy it into your agent's skills folder and the agent loads it when the task matches its description.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guide.git /tmp/claude-code-guide mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills cp -r /tmp/claude-code-guide/skills/deep-module-refactor ~/.claude/skills/deep-module-refactor
In the Claude apps, zip the folder and upload it from the Skills settings. The folder on GitHub
The instructions your agent would load
SKILL.md as published, without the frontmatter. Read it on GitHub
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:
- Interface signature (types, methods, params)
- Usage example showing how callers use it
- What complexity it hides internally
- Dependency strategy (how deps are handled — see REFERENCE.md)
- 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.
More skills from zebbern/claude-code-guide
- Aacademic-paper-reviewerSimulates academic peer review, evaluating papers across Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing to provide Major/Minor Revision recommendations with actionable feedback. Triggers when a user asks to \"review my paper,\" \"simulate peer review,\" or \"give my paper a peer review.
- Aactive-directory-attacksThis skill should be used when the user asks to "attack Active Directory", "exploit AD", "Kerberoasting", "DCSync", "pass-the-hash", "BloodHound enumeration", "Golden Ticket", "Silver Ticket", "AS-REP roasting", "NTLM relay", or needs guidance on Windows domain penetration testing.
- Capi-fuzzing-bug-bountyThis skill should be used when the user asks to "test API security", "fuzz APIs", "find IDOR vulnerabilities", "test REST API", "test GraphQL", "API penetration testing", "bug bounty API testing", or needs guidance on API security assessment techniques.
- Aapi-shape-explorerGenerate multiple radically different interface designs for a module using parallel sub-agents. Use when user wants to design an API, explore interface options, compare module shapes, or mentions "design it twice".
- Aaudit-flowInteractive system flow tracing across CODE, API, AUTH, DATA, NETWORK layers with SQLite persistence and Mermaid export. Use for security audits, compliance documentation, flow tracing, feature ideation, brainstorming, debugging, architecture reviews, or incident post-mortems. Triggers on audit, trace flow, document flow, security review, debug flow, brainstorm, architecture review, post-mortem, incident review.
- Aauthentication-patternsAuthentication patterns: session vs JWT vs OAuth comparison, provider selection (NextAuth, Clerk, Supabase Auth), security checklist, and common mistakes. Use when implementing auth, reviewing auth flows, or choosing auth providers.
- Aaws-penetration-testingThis skill should be used when the user asks to "pentest AWS", "test AWS security", "enumerate IAM", "exploit cloud infrastructure", "AWS privilege escalation", "S3 bucket testing", "metadata SSRF", "Lambda exploitation", or needs guidance on Amazon Web Services security assessment.
- Abroken-authenticationThis skill should be used when the user asks to "test for broken authentication vulnerabilities", "assess session management security", "perform credential stuffing tests", "evaluate password policies", "test for session fixation", or "identify authentication bypass flaws". It provides comprehensive techniques for identifying authentication and session management weaknesses in web applications.
- Cburp-suite-testingThis skill should be used when the user asks to "intercept HTTP traffic", "modify web requests", "use Burp Suite for testing", "perform web vulnerability scanning", "test with Burp Repeater", "analyze HTTP history", or "configure proxy for web testing". It provides comprehensive guidance for using Burp Suite's core features for web application security testing.
- AcachingCaching strategies — invalidation, TTL guidelines, cache keys, cache layers, and when not to cache. Use when implementing or reviewing caching logic.
- Achart-imageGenerate publication-quality PNG chart images from data, supporting line, bar, area, candlestick, pie, and heatmap charts. Triggers when the user asks to visualize data, create a graph, plot a time series, or generate a chart for a report, alert, or dashboard. Runs as a lightweight, headless Node.js process without a browser.
- Dcloud-penetration-testingThis skill should be used when the user asks to "perform cloud penetration testing", "assess Azure or AWS or GCP security", "enumerate cloud resources", "exploit cloud misconfigurations", "test O365 security", "extract secrets from cloud environments", or "audit cloud infrastructure". It provides comprehensive techniques for security assessment across major cloud platforms.