architect-refactor

To plan a safe codebase migration, you map module dependencies and sequence changes incrementally to preserve behavior. This process clarifies the blast radius, identifies required test coverage, and produces a step-by-step plan to guide teams through phase-based changes safely.

Mapping the blast radius of a large refactor involves analyzing the dependency graph across the codebase to identify callers, consumers, and affected modules. This dependency mapping clarifies impact and guides the sequencing of phase-based changes to mitigate risk.

Creating a step-by-step migration plan for sizable codebase refactors involves mapping dependencies, assessing test coverage, and evaluating risk to sequence changes safely. It enforces explicit sequencing and behavioral preservation to guide teams through incremental phase-based updates.

Yes, you can guide collaborative architecture decisions during a refactor by using a workflow that documents rationale and generates artifacts. This approach enforces decision documentation and produces architecture.md and decisions.md files to drive implementation.

For a structured code migration plan, you need artifacts like architecture.md and decisions.md to document decisions and rationale. These documentation artifacts drive implementation by enforcing the explicit sequencing and behavioral preservation required for safe refactoring.

You should avoid incremental refactoring when you cannot guarantee behavioral preservation or assess test coverage across the dependency graph. Large refactors require explicit sequencing and risk evaluation; without mapping the blast radius, phase-based changes become unsafe.