/dry-refactoring

name: dry-refactoring
description: Guided workflow to eliminate copy-paste duplication detected by jscpd. Refactor exact, renamed and near-miss clones using extract function, parameterize, module, constant, or base class strategies, starting from the hotspots the summary ranks.

dry-refactoring

Guided workflow to eliminate copy-paste duplication in source code. Use after running [jscpd](../jscpd/SKILL.md) to detect clones.

Prerequisites

First, run jscpd to identify duplications:

npx jscpd --reporters ai <path>

In codebases that mix related formats (e.g. JavaScript and TypeScript), add `--cross-formats` so clones spanning both are detected too:

npx jscpd --reporters ai --cross-formats "js-ts" <path>

On larger codebases, add `--summary` to get a refactoring-hotspot overview alongside the clone list — top files and folders with a `dup%` column showing how much of each file is duplicated:

npx jscpd --reporters ai --summary <path>

The default scan reports only **exact** copies, and those are the ones to refactor first: an exact clone is almost always a real copy-paste. Two more passes find copies that were edited after pasting. They are **noisier**: they ignore names, values or a few statements on purpose, so they also surface blocks that merely look alike (models and DTOs, config tables, test setup, generated code, shared idioms). Run them only after the exact clones are dealt with, one family at a time, with tight settings, and treat what they report as leads to read rather than defects to fix:

# Type-2: renamed copies (other variable names, other constants), reported as "(renamed)".
# Raise --min-tokens: with identifiers ignored, a short block is mostly placeholders.
npx jscpd --reporters ai --ignore-identifiers --min-tokens 70 <path>

# Type-3: near-miss copies (one or two edited lines, or JS/TS functions with the same structure),
# reported as "[~0.91 gap]" and "[~0.85 ast]". Widen only if the tight run finds nothing.
npx jscpd --reporters ai --max-gap-lines 1 --similarity 0.85 <path>

See the **[jscpd](../jscpd/SKILL.md)** skill for full option reference, including cross-format group syntax, the clone-kind suffixes and how to read the summary.

Workflow

1. Run jscpd with `--reporters ai` on the target path (add `--summary` on larger codebases to pick a starting point: files with high `dup%` and high token counts pay off most) 2. Parse each clone line to identify the two duplicated locations (file + line range) and its kind: no suffix is an exact copy, `(renamed)` differs only in names or values, `[~N gap]` has a few edited lines in the middle, `[~N ast]` is a function pair with the same structure 3. Read both code fragments from the source files 4. Understand what the duplicated code does, and for renamed and similar clones list exactly what differs between the two sides 5. **Triage renamed and similar clones before touching them.** Skip the pair, and say so, when any of these holds: the two sides do different things despite the same shape (a `switch` over different enums, two reducers with unrelated semantics); the sameness is intentional boilerplate (models, DTOs, config, route tables, test fixtures); the code is generated; a shared abstraction would need a vague name like `processData`; or the pair is under about 10 lines. Only a pair that would let you delete code and give the extraction a precise name goes on to the next step 6. Design a refactoring: extract a shared function, class, module, or constant; the kind decides the strategy (below) 7. Apply the refactoring — update both locations and all other usages 8. Re-run jscpd **with the same flags** to confirm the clone is eliminated and the `dup%` of the touched files went down; a clone that was `(renamed)` will not show in a default run, so check with `--ignore-identifiers` again 9. Repeat for remaining clones, highest-impact first: exact clones, then renamed, then similar. Report the skipped candidates separately from the refactored ones, with the reason, so nobody mistakes a normalized run's count for real duplication

Refactoring Strategies

**Extract function** — when the duplicate is a block of logic:

// Before: same block in two places
// After: shared function called from both places

**Extract module/utility** — when the duplicate spans multiple files in different domains:

// Move shared logic to a shared utility file and import it

**Extract constant or config** — when the duplicate is repeated data or configuration.

**Template/base class** — when the duplicate is structural (e.g., repeated class shape).

**Parameterize** — for `(renamed)` clones. The two sides are the same algorithm over different names or values, so the things that differ become parameters:

// Before: computeCartTotal(items) and computeBasketTotal(entries), same body, other names;
//         limits-dev.js and limits-prod.js, same shape, other numbers
// After: one function whose parameters are the identifiers that differed,
//        or one function reading the values that differed from a config object

A renamed clone whose only difference is a literal is a missing constant or config entry, not a missing function.

**Unify near-miss copies** — for `[~N gap]` clones. Read the unmatched lines: the gap is the one place the copies diverged, typically a guard, a log call or an extra field. Extract the common body and pass the divergence in:

// Before: saveUser and saveAccount, identical except one inserted validation line
// After: one saveRecord(record, { validate }) with the inserted line behind the option,
//        or the inserted line moved to the caller before the shared call

If the gap changes the meaning rather than adding a step, keep two functions but extract the shared halves.

**Merge similar functions** — for `[~N ast]` clones. The structure matches but names, literals and some statements do not. Diff the two functions first; t