Skill: tristanmanchester/ai-codebase-deep-modules (version 1.0.0)

--- name: ai-codebase-deep-modules description: >- Designs and refactors software codebases to be AI-friendly by aligning the filesystem with domain/feature boundaries, creating deep (greybox) modules with small public interfaces, enforcing import boundaries, and tightening tests/feedback loops. Use when the user asks to "make the codebase AI-ready", "reduce coupling", "introduce deep modules", "create module boundaries", "restructure folders by feature", "define service interfaces", or "plan a refactor + tests so AI agents can work safely". compatibility: Works in skills-compatible coding assistants with repository file access. Optional scripts require Python 3. metadata: author: generated-from-transcript version: "1.0.0" --- # AI Codebase Deep Modules Turn “a web of shallow, cross-importing files” into a codebase that is **easy for AI (and humans) to navigate, change, and test**. This skill is built around four ideas: 1. **The codebase matters more than the prompt.** AI struggles when feedback is slow, structure is unclear, and dependencies are tangled. 2. **Match the filesystem to the mental model.** Group code the way you *think* about it (features/domains/services), not as a grab-bag of utilities. 3. **Prefer deep modules.** Lots of implementation behind a small, well-designed public interface. 4. **Treat deep modules as greyboxes.** Lock behaviour with tests at the boundary; internal code becomes replaceable. ## When to use this skill Use this skill when the user wants any of the following: - Refactor an existing repo to be **more navigable** and **safer for AI-assisted coding** - Introduce/strengthen **module boundaries**, reduce coupling, or eliminate “spaghetti imports” - Restructure the repo **by feature/domain** (a “map you hold in your head” reflected on disk) - Define **service/module interfaces**, public APIs, and “only import from here” rules - Build **fast feedback loops** (tests, typecheck, lint) so AI can verify changes quickly - Plan a refactor with **incremental steps**, acceptance criteria, and tests Do **not** use this skill for: - One-off debugging of an isolated error (use normal debugging / code review) - Purely stylistic refactors with no boundary or testing implications - Writing greenfield code where the user already has a clear modular architecture (unless they want a module template) ## Inputs this skill expects (minimal) If available, ask for or infer: - Language/runtime (TS/JS, Python, Go, Java/Kotlin, etc.) - How to run **the fastest meaningful check** (unit tests, typecheck, lint, build) - The top 3–7 “chunks” of product behaviour (domains/features/services) - Any hard constraints (monorepo tooling, existing packages, deployment boundaries) If the user hasn’t provided this, **do not stall**. Make best-effort guesses by inspecting: - `package.json`, `pyproject.toml`, `go.mod`, `pom.xml`, `build.gradle`, `Makefile`, `justfile` - `src/`, `app/`, `packages/`, `services/`, `modules/` - existing test folders and CI configs --- # Workflow ## Step 0 — Establish the feedback loop (non-negotiable) Goal: ensure there is a **fast “did it work?” loop** before and during refactors. 1. Identify the quickest command that provides signal: - Typecheck: `tsc -p tsconfig.json` - Unit tests: `npm test`, `pytest -q`, `go test ./...` - Lint: `eslint .`, `ruff check`, `golangci-lint run` 2. Prefer a **single “verify” entrypoint**: - `make verify`, `just verify`, `npm run verify`, `./scripts/verify.sh` 3. If tests are missing, propose the smallest viable starting point: - Smoke tests for core flows - Contract tests for the boundaries you’re about to introduce 4. If the loop is slow, propose speed-ups *before* large refactors: - Run only impacted packages - Split unit vs integration tests - Cache dependencies in CI Deliverable: a short “Feedback loop” section with the exact commands and expected outputs. ## Step 1 — Reconstruct the mental map of the codebase Goal: identify the natural groupings that already exist in the product. 1. List the product domains/features (aim for 3–10): - e.g. `auth`, `billing`, `thumbnail-editor`, `video-editor`, `cms-forms` 2. For each domain, identify: - entrypoints (routes/controllers/handlers) - data boundaries (models/schemas) - external dependencies (APIs, DB, queues) 3. Capture the current pain: - “Where do people get lost?” - “What breaks when we change X?” - “Where are imports crossing domains?” Deliverable: a **Module Map** (table) with: domain, responsibilities, key files, current coupling risks. ## Step 2 — Design deep modules (few, chunky, stable interfaces) Goal: reduce the number of things the agent must keep in working memory. For each domain/module candidate: 1. Define the **public interface** (small surface area): - functions/classes/commands exposed - public types/data contracts - error/edge-case semantics 2. Define what is **explicitly internal**: - helper functions, adapters, DB queries, parsing, etc. 3. Decide the dependency direction: - Prefer: `domain → shared primitives` - Avoid: `domain ↔ domain` cross-imports 4. Keep the interface boring and predictable: - stable names - minimal parameters - explicit return types / result objects Deliverable: an **Interface Spec** for each deep module: - Public API (signatures) - Invariants (pre/post conditions) - Examples (happy path + one edge case) See: [references/module-templates.md](references/module-templates.md) ## Step 3 — Align the filesystem to the map (progressive disclosure) Goal: make it obvious where to look. Default rule: **outside code imports only from a module’s public entrypoint**. Recommended structure (adapt per language): - `src/<module>/` - `index.*` (public exports) - `types.*` (public types) - `internal/` (implementation details; not imported from outside) - `__tests__/` or `tests/` (contract tests for the public API) If the repo uses packages, prefer `packages/<module>/` with explicit exports. Deliverable: a “Move plan” listing: - directories to create - files to move - import paths to update - temporary compatibility shims (if needed) ## Step 4 — Make modules greyboxes with boundary tests Goal: you shouldn’t need to understand internals to trust behaviour. 1. Write/identify **contract tests** for each module’s public API: - behavioural checks - key error cases - side effects (DB writes, events emitted) via fakes/spies 2. Keep tests close to the interface: - treat internals as replaceable 3. Only add internal unit tests where: - performance-critical logic needs tight coverage - tricky algorithms deserve direct tests Deliverable: test plan + initial contract test skeletons. See: [references/testing-and-feedback.md](references/testing-and-feedback.md) ## Step 5 — Enforce boundaries (so the architecture stays true) Goal: prevent the codebase from drifting back into a web. Pick the lightest viable enforcement: - **Conventions + code review** (baseline) - **Lint rules** (TS/JS: `no-restricted-imports`, ESLint boundary plugins) - **Architecture tests** (assert “module A cannot import module B”) - **Language-level boundaries** (Go `internal/`, Rust `pub(crate)`, Java modules) Deliverable: an “Enforcement” section with the exact rules and where to configure them. See: [references/boundary-enforcement.md](references/boundary-enforcement.md) ## Step 6 — Refactor incrementally (strangler pattern) Goal: avoid giant-bang rewrites. Suggested sequence: 1. Create the new module folder and **public interface** (empty implementation). 2. Add contract tests (they will fail). 3. Add a thin adapter that wraps existing code (tests pass). 4. Move internals gradually behind the interface: - keep exports stable - delete old entrypoints only once usage is migrated 5. Repeat module-by-module. Deliverable: a stepwise refactor plan with checkpoints and rollback options. --- # Output format (what to produce) When this skill is activated, produce a structured plan using this outline: 1. **Current state summary** (1–2 paragraphs) 2. **Fast feedback loop** (exact commands) 3. **Module Map** (table) 4. **Proposed deep modules** (list + responsibilities) 5. **Interface specs** (per module) 6. **Filesystem changes** (move plan) 7. **Boundary enforcement** (rules + tooling) 8. **Testing strategy** (contract tests first) 9. **Incremental migration steps** (with checkpoints) Optional: copy the template from `assets/architecture-plan-template.md`. --- # Examples ## Example 1 — Broad request User says: “Make our TypeScript monorepo more AI-friendly. It’s hard to find things and tests are slow.” Actions: 1. Identify `verify` loop (typecheck + unit tests) and how to run it per package. 2. Produce a module map (3–7 modules). 3. Propose deep modules with a clear public interface (`index.ts`, `types.ts`). 4. Recommend boundary enforcement via ESLint `no-restricted-imports`. 5. Add contract tests for each module. Result: a concrete refactor plan and initial skeletons that can be executed incrementally. ## Example 2 — Specific boundary problem User says: “Auth imports billing and billing imports auth. We keep breaking things.” Actions: 1. Identify dependency cycle and why it exists (shared types? shared DB code?). 2. Extract a deep module interface boundary: - `auth` exports `getCurrentUser()`, `requireAuth()` - `billing` depends on those interfaces only (no deep imports) 3. Move shared primitives into `shared/` or `platform/` module. 4. Add an architecture rule to prevent the cycle returning. Result: cycle removed, boundaries enforced, behaviour locked by tests. --- # Troubleshooting ## Skill feels too “high level” Use the template and references to get concrete: - [references/module-templates.md](references/module-templates.md) - [references/prompts.md](references/prompts.md) ## Refactor is risky / unknown behaviour Prioritise greybox contract tests first: - freeze behaviour at the public interface - only then move internals ## Boundaries are hard to enforce in TS/JS Start with lint rules and path conventions; add architecture tests if needed. See: [references/boundary-enforcement.md](references/boundary-enforcement.md)


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: suspicious | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)