refactor

## Project Context

- git installed: !`which git 2>/dev/null || echo "not installed"`
- current branch: !`git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo unknown`
- working tree: !`git status --porcelain 2>/dev/null | head -5`
- CLAUDE.md: !`find . -maxdepth 1 -name "CLAUDE.md" -type f`
- project-discovery.md: !`find . -maxdepth 3 -name "project-discovery.md" -type f`
- personal config directory: !`bash "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/han-config-dir.sh" 2>/dev/null || echo "$HOME/.claude"`
- project .han/config.md: !`cat .han/config.md 2>/dev/null || echo ""`

As your first action, use the Read tool on `.han/config.md` inside the `personal config directory` path above. A read
that returns no file is no personal configuration: continue silently. When that file or the `project .han/config.md`
probe supplies content, apply it per [config-rule.md](../../references/config-rule.md), which governs precedence
between the two files, relative-path resolution, and what to do with a file that reads but cannot be used.

## Constraints (read before anything else)

This skill restructures existing production and test code in your working tree. It is an execution skill, not a document
generator. These constraints shape every step and override any instinct to move faster. The canon they derive from, with
provenance, is in [references/refactoring-discipline.md](./references/refactoring-discipline.md); pull that reference
when a step needs the full rule or a step feels off.

- **Behavior preservation is the definition.** A refactoring changes internal structure without changing observable
  behavior. A change that alters behavior is not a refactoring done badly; it is not a refactoring at all. When a
  planned step turns out to require a behavior change, it leaves this skill's scope: defer it with a note naming the
  behavior change it needs.
- **Tests are the license to refactor.** No edit until the full suite has been run, observed green, and the target's
  behavior is covered. If coverage of the target cannot be established, stop and offer the characterization path in the
  reference; never refactor blind.
- **Small named steps, green to green.** Each step is one named refactoring with a bounded mechanic (extract function,
  rename, move, inline, and so on), and the suite runs after every step. A red suite after a step means revert the step,
  not patch forward.
- **The declared scope is a contract.** The target named in Step 1 bounds every edit. When a step starts pulling in
  files outside that scope, stop, report the spread, and let the user re-scope. Spreading edits are how a refactoring
  silently becomes a rewrite.
- **Never alongside an active tdd loop.** If the working tree shows a red-green cycle in flight (failing tests, a
  half-implemented behavior), do not run: the refactor step of `/tdd` owns cleanup inside the loop, and restructuring
  while a test is red violates the two-hats rule both skills share.
- **Refactor-only changes.** No behavior fixes, no features, no drive-by bug fixes, even when you spot one. Record what
  you found and leave it. If the user asks for commits, each commit contains refactoring only.
- **YAGNI governs the plan.** Apply [../../references/yagni-rule.md](../../references/yagni-rule.md): every refactoring
  in the plan needs evidence the code has a reason to change (a review finding, named duplication, a confusing read
  documented by the user, upcoming work in that area). Removing duplication is the job; adding speculative abstraction,
  configuration, or indirection is not. Defer evidence-free items with a reopen trigger.

# Refactor

## Step 1: Bind the Target and Resolve Project Config

**Bind the target.** Resolve the request to a named target: specific files or directories, a named code smell in a named
place, or the refactoring findings in a provided document (a `/code-review` report, an `/architectural-analysis` report,
or equivalent). When a findings document is given, extract only the refactoring-shaped findings (structural suggestions,
duplication, naming, coupling) and record each finding's ID so the summary can trace back to it. If the request is
open-ended ("clean up the codebase", "improve quality") with no named target, ask the user for one before doing
anything: open-ended refactoring runs are the documented failure mode this skill exists to avoid, and a wrong guess here
burns the whole run.

**Resolve commands.** Read CLAUDE.md's `## Project Discovery` section for the test command (under
`### Commands and Tests`), the lint command, the build command, language, and framework. If absent, fall back to
`project-discovery.md`. If still absent, run `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/detect-refactor-context.sh` and parse its
output for git state and manifest-inferred commands. A missing test command is a hard blocker: exhaust inference, then
ask the user, because this skill cannot run without a way to verify behavior. Also note any type-check command the
project has; where one exists it runs alongside the tests as a second behavior-preservation check.

**Resolve standards and decisions.** Resolve the coding-standards directory and ADR directory the same way: CLAUDE.md's
`## Project Discovery` section, then `project-discovery.md`, then Glob defaults (`docs/`, `docs/adr/`,
`docs/coding-standards/`, `docs/decisions/`). Also check `CLAUDE.md` and `AGENTS.md` for inline standards. Read the
standards and ADRs whose titles, paths, or one-line summaries indicate they govern the target area; cap at five
documents. The target's restructured form must conform to these. If none exist, state that plainly and infer conventions
from the surrounding code.

## Step 2: Establish the Safety Net

**Check the tree.** If `working tree` in Project Context shows failing mid-cycle work or the user describes an in-flight
tdd loop on this code, stop and say why (the never-alongside-tdd constraint). Uncommitted but complete work is fine;
recommend committing it first so refactoring diffs s