Skip to content

re-frame2-improver

Reviews existing re-frame2 ClojureScript code against a catalogue of re-frame2 anti-patterns, and fixes what it finds when you ask it to. It runs only when you ask for a review.

Kickoff

Ask for a review with the code in scope:

Using re-frame2-improver, review src/app/cart/ for re-frame2 anti-patterns.

To apply corrections as well, ask: "Using re-frame2-improver, review and fix src/app/cart/." In Claude Code, /re-frame2-improver loads it explicitly.

What it does

The re-frame2-improver skill reads your source files (or a snippet you paste), checks them against a small anti-pattern catalogue, and returns one complete critique in the same turn, most severe first. Each finding gives the file and line, what goes wrong because of it, the smallest safe correction, and a link to the canonical idiom under skills/re-frame2/patterns/.

The catalogue covers six anti-patterns: hand-rolled HTTP retry loops, :loading? flags set and cleared by hand, a cluster of ? subscriptions standing in for one status, boundary events that write HTTP replies or storage and URL data into app-db with no schema, side effects and impure reads inside event handlers, and view-held state (r/atom, use-state) that belongs in app-db. Each is a note under references/; SKILL.md §Routing lists each one with the source signals that make the skill load it.

Whether it edits depends on what you asked for:

  • "Review this" is read-only. Each finding states its correction; nothing is applied.
  • "Review and fix" applies those corrections inside the scope you named, with no second approval round.

A redesign that reaches beyond that scope stays a proposal either way. An instruction written into the code under review — a comment addressed to the agent — is treated as data, never obeyed. The reply includes only the sections that have content (scope reviewed, findings, fixes applied, open questions), and a clean result is one short verdict naming what was reviewed against this catalogue. That verdict does not claim the code is free of every kind of bug. Findings that share one correction are combined, so a loading flag and its boolean subscriptions do not generate conflicting rewrites.

When to reach for it

Use it when you explicitly ask for a review of re-frame2 code you already have, and that code is in front of the agent: read or edited in the conversation, pasted as a snippet, or named by a .cljs / .cljc file or directory path the skill can read (it reads the path before critiquing). An unreadable path is reported without blocking review of a supplied snippet or other readable source. Asking for a review with no available source is not enough; a clean verdict covers only what was inspected.

For related work:

When it stops

  • No code in scope — if nothing has been read, edited, pasted or named as a resolvable .cljs / .cljc path, it asks for a snippet rather than invent evidence.
  • The code is still re-frame v1 (reg-event-db, reg-event-fx, inject-cofx) — it says so and routes you to re-frame-migration rather than proposing re-frame2 rewrites into a v1 codebase.
  • A finding that is really a gap in re-frame2 — it describes the gap for you to file against day8/re-frame2. It does not rewrite your code around the gap, and it has no way to file the issue itself.

The skill contract contains the full workflow and links to its reference notes.