Repository hygiene: remove redundancy without breaking behavior

The problem is not that the agent writes a lot

The problem starts when every iteration adds a layer without removing the previous one: forwarding wrappers, unused legacy aliases, duplicate validation, and exports that enlarge the public contract. Tests may remain green while the repository becomes harder to understand and change.

A post detected by Aulafy's X radar was used only as a demand signal. The technical method comes from official documentation and a reproducible lab; a social report alone does not prove that a tool causes technical debt.

Five gates for a safe refactor

• Baseline: run tests and record Git state before editing.
• Contract: identify imports, exports, effects, and outputs that must remain.
• Budget: limit files and forbid unnecessary dependencies or abstractions.
• Evidence: require green behavior tests and a separate structural audit.
• Diff: explain every deletion and confirm tests were not weakened to hide a regression.

git status --short
git diff --stat
npm test

# After the change
npm test
npm run auditar
git diff --numstat -- src/tasks.mjs
git diff -- src/tasks.mjs

Green tests do not mean a clean repository

Behavior tests answer “does it still work?”. A structural audit can answer “were the agreed wrappers removed?” or “did the public API stay within its budget?”. You need both signals: line count alone can reward compressed code, while a suite alone may ignore dead code.

What to ask the agent

Official Codex guidance recommends stating the goal, context, constraints, and definition of done, then running checks and reviewing the diff. Claude Code documentation likewise recommends giving the agent a way to verify its work and keeping project instructions concise.

Goal: remove redundant wrappers without changing the API covered by tests.
Context: read AGENTS.md, src/tasks.mjs, and test/tasks.test.mjs.
Boundaries: edit only src/tasks.mjs; do not change tests or package.json; add no dependency or abstraction.
Done when: npm test and npm run auditar pass; the diff deletes more than it adds; explain every deletion and remaining risk.

Review the result

• Reject test edits that merely adapt expectations to a regression.
• Look for new names hiding the same old abstraction.
• Check consumers outside the file before removing a real export.
• Do not use fewer lines as the only criterion: readability and contract matter.
• Start in a training repository or reversible branch.

MIT lab

The aulafy/taller repository provides a working but redundant baseline, a dependency-free test suite, an audit that intentionally fails at first, and a reference solution. You can repeat the same exercise with Codex, Claude Code, or manually.