smell

Smell — Architecture Bad Smell Detector

Analyze a codebase to find violations of software architecture principles, anti-patterns, code "bad smells," and algorithmic complexity hotspots. Produce a comprehensive, actionable markdown report.

Knowledge base: This skill encodes architectural patterns, anti-patterns, code smells, and algorithmic complexity heuristics drawn from industry research and practice, including the classic code smells catalog by Martin Fowler / Kent Beck (as organized on refactoring.guru: Bloaters, Object-Orientation Abusers, Change Preventers, Dispensables, Couplers).

The Job

1. Understand the scope — ask what part of the project to analyze (full project, specific module, or recent changes)
2. Scan the codebase using find, grep, and Agent (Explore subagent) to gather candidate signals and evidence
3. Validate candidates against context, callers, history, workload, and measurements before confirming findings
4. Generate a detailed markdown report saved to tasks/smell-report-[timestamp].md
5. Present a summary of confirmed findings and separate candidates to the user

Step 1: Scope Clarification

Ask the user:

What scope should I analyze?
  A. Entire project (thorough, may take time)
  B. Specific module/directory: [please specify]
  C. Only recently changed files (git diff)
  D. Only architectural-level issues (skip low-level code smells)

If the user doesn't specify, default to option A for small projects (< 100 files) or C for large projects.

Step 2: Evidence Gathering

Use the Explore subagent (Agent with subagent_type: "Explore") to scan the codebase for architectural patterns and anti-patterns. Run multiple parallel explorations:

Exploration Commands

Run these in parallel to gather evidence efficiently:

1. Project Structure Scan: Map the directory tree, identify the architectural style (layered, modular monolith, microservices, etc.)
2. Dependency Analysis: Find import/include patterns, check for circular dependencies, identify coupling hotspots
3. Module/Component Scan: Identify God Objects (files > 500 lines), check cohesion, check single responsibility violations
4. Pattern Detection: Look for known anti-pattern signatures (static cling, service locator abuse, leaky abstractions)
5. Testing Scan: Check test coverage patterns, test file locations, test-to-code ratios
6. Naming & Clarity Scan: Flag misleading names, overly generic names (Manager, Helper, Util), inconsistent naming conventions
7. Complexity Scan: Detect algorithmic complexity hotspots — nested loops, N+1 queries, repeated scans, sort-in-loop, expensive recomputation in render paths

Key Heuristics

Heuristics are candidate signals, not findings. A line-count, nesting, naming, or Big-O match must be validated against the code's responsibility, callers, change history, workload, and intentional constraints. Do not assign severity from a threshold alone.

Step 3: Report Generation

Finding Identity and Evidence

Process every candidate in three stages:

1. Candidate detection: static patterns, file metrics, and dependency scans produce candidates only.
2. Context validation: read the implementation and relevant callers; check change frequency, input size, runtime frequency, framework constraints, generated/vendor status, and existing mitigations.
3. Finding confirmation: merge candidates with the same root cause, affected path, failure/change scenario, and remediation direction into one finding.

Count findings by independent root cause, never by the number of principles they implicate. Use one Primary principle and optional Related principles. SOLID is an umbrella label; use SRP, OCP, or DIP as the primary label when the evidence supports a specific lens, without also creating a separate SOLID finding.

Canonical 11-Principle Matrix

For each confirmed finding, record evidence strength (Measured, Observed, or Inferred) separately from confidence (High, Medium, or Low/Candidate). Evidence strength does not imply severity.

Severity Rubric

• Critical: correctness, reliability, security, data consistency, or measured system-level impact; normally requires high confidence.
• Warning: clear reach or repeated change/runtime cost with a concrete maintenance or runtime consequence.
• Suggestion: local, low-frequency, or limited-impact improvement with evidence.
• Candidate requiring measurement: static signal with unknown impact; exclude it from severity totals and put it in a separate report section.

Generate the report in this structure:

# Architecture Smell Report

**Project:** [project-name]
**Scope:** [scope description]
**Date:** [date]
**Analyzer:** smell skill (Ducc)

---

## Executive Summary

[2-3 paragraph summary of confirmed findings only: architectural style detected, overall health assessment, and top 3-5 critical issues. Mention candidates separately.]

---

## Architectural Style Detected

[Identify the architectural style: Layered, Modular Monolith, Microservices, Hexagonal, Clean Architecture, or Big Ball of Mud]

### Style Expectations vs. Reality

| Expectation | Reality | Status |
|-------------|---------|--------|
| [e.g., Clear layer separation] | [what was found] | ✅/⚠️/🔴 |

---

## Findings by Category

### 🔴 Critical Issues (Must Fix)

[Issues that fundamentally undermine architecture]

### 🟡 Warnings (Should Fix)

[Issues that degrade maintainability but don't block function]

### 🔵 Suggestions (Nice to Fix)

[Minor improvements that would increase quality]

### Candidates Requiring Measurement

[Static candidates whose runtime impact, change frequency, or workload is not yet established. These do not count toward severity totals.]

---

## Detailed Findings

### Finding #1: [Title]

- **Category:** [Architecture/Coupling/Cohesion/Design/Code/Testing/Naming/Complexity]
- **Severity:** 🔴 Critical / 🟡 Warning / 🔵 Suggestion
- **Anti-Pattern:** [Name of anti-pattern]
- **Location:** [file:line references and relevant callers]
- **Confidence:** [High/Medium]
- **Evidence strength:** [Measured/Observed/Inferred]
- **Failure or change scenario:** [Concrete scenario]
- **Primary principle:** [Most specific principle]
- **Related principles:** [Explanatory only; do not count separately]
- **Description:** [What was found and why it's a problem]
- **Evidence:** [Code, dependency, history, or measurement]
- **Measured/observed impact:** [Reach, frequency, consequence, or baseline]
- **Recommendation:** [Smallest justified refactoring]
- **Verification:** [How to prove behavior and impact]

---

## Dependency Graph Analysis

[Summary of module dependencies, circular dependencies found, coupling hotspots]

---

## Module Health Scorecard

| Module | Lines | God Object Risk | Coupling | Cohesion | Test Coverage | Health |
|--------|-------|----------------|----------|----------|---------------|--------|
| [name] | [N] | [Low/Med/High] | [Low/Med/High] | [Low/Med/High] | [% or N/A] | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |

---

## Smell Distribution

Count only deduplicated confirmed findings by their primary category. Related principles and candidates do not affect these totals.

| Category | Count | Critical | Warning | Suggestion |
|----------|-------|----------|---------|------------|
| Architecture | [N] | [N] | [N] | [N] |
| Coupling | [N] | [N] | [N] | [N] |
| Cohesion | [N] | [N] | [N] | [N] |
| Design | [N] | [N] | [N] | [N] |
| Code | [N] | [N] | [N] | [N] |
| Testing | [N] | [N] | [N] | [N] |
| Naming | [N] | [N] | [N] | [N] |
| Complexity | [N] | [N] | [N] | [N] |

---

## Refactoring Roadmap

Order work by impact, confidence, dependency sequence, and verification cost—not by principle count or smell name. Put only high-confidence, verifiable findings in Immediate Actions; for candidates, recommend the next measurement instead of a rewrite.

### Immediate Actions (This Sprint)
1. [Actionable fix 1]
2. [Actionable fix 2]

### Short-Term (1-3 Months)
1. [Structural improvement 1]
2. [Structural improvement 2]

### Long-Term (3-12 Months)
1. [Architectural transformation 1]
2. [Architectural transformation 2]

---

## Appendix: Anti-Pattern Reference

[A condensed reference of anti-patterns checked, with brief descriptions]

Step 4: Save and Present

Save the report to tasks/smell-report-[YYYY-MM-DD-HHmm].md and present a brief summary to the user.

Anti-Pattern Knowledge Base

This section documents the architectural anti-patterns and bad smells the skill knows about.

Architectural Anti-Patterns

Big Ball of Mud

The most common de-facto architecture. A haphazardly structured, sprawling system with no perceivable architecture. Characterized by:

• Promiscuous sharing of information between distant elements
• Global or duplicated important state
• Structure eroded beyond recognition or never defined
• Repeated expedient repair ("duct tape and bailing wire")
• Forces: Time pressure, cost, inexperience, complexity, change, scale
• Remedy: Define architecture boundaries, refactor incrementally, apply SHEARING LAYERS, KEEP IT WORKING

Distributed Monolith

Microservices that must be deployed together. Symptoms:

• Services share a database
• Synchronous chains of service calls
• Changes require coordinated deployments
• Remedy: Decouple data stores, introduce async messaging, enforce bounded contexts

Anemic Domain Model

Domain objects with only getters/setters (data bags), all logic in services. Violates:

• "Tell, Don't Ask" principle
• Rich Domain Model pattern from DDD
• Remedy: Move behavior into domain objects, use domain services only for cross-aggregate operations

God Object

A class that knows too much or does too much. Characteristics:

• 500 lines or > 20 public methods

• Handles unrelated concerns
• Difficult to test in isolation
• Single Responsibility Principle violation
• Remedy: Extract cohesive groups of methods into dedicated classes

Leaky Abstractions

Abstractions that expose implementation details. Signs:

• Interface methods named after implementation (e.g., SaveToPostgres, FetchFromRedis)
• Consumers catching implementation-specific exceptions
• Configuration details exposed through abstractions
• Remedy: Design interfaces from the consumer's perspective, hide implementation details

Static Cling

Excessive use of static methods/state. Problems:

• Untestable (can't mock static calls)
• Hidden dependencies
• Thread-safety issues with static state
• Remedy: Use dependency injection, convert stateless statics to instance methods

Service Locator Abuse

Using a service locator instead of dependency injection. Issues:

• Hidden dependencies (dependencies not visible in constructor)
• Runtime errors instead of compile-time errors
• Testing difficulty
• Remedy: Use constructor injection, register dependencies at composition root

Violated Layer Boundaries (Clean/Onion/Hexagonal Architecture)

In layered architectures:

• Clean Architecture: Outer layers (frameworks) leaking into inner layers (use cases, entities)
• Onion Architecture: Infrastructure concerns in domain core
• Hexagonal Architecture: Business logic coupled to specific adapters instead of ports
• Remedy: Apply dependency inversion, define clear port interfaces

CQRS Overuse

Applying CQRS to simple CRUD. Signs:

• Separate read/write models for trivial data access
• Event sourcing when events don't add business value
• Unnecessary complexity
• Remedy: Use CQRS only when read/write models genuinely differ or have different scaling needs

Vertical Slice Contamination

In Vertical Slice Architecture:

• Cross-slice coupling (one feature directly calling another)
• Shared service classes undermining slice independence
• Remedy: Use events/messages for cross-slice communication, duplicate simple logic if needed

Top Ten Software Architecture Mistakes

A set of architecture-level anti-patterns describing over- and under-engineering. The common thread: architecture disconnected from real needs and reality. The opposite extreme (too little architecture) is equally a smell.

Over-Layered / Multitier Architecture

"Layers on layers on layers." Adding tiers beyond what the problem needs:

• Each layer just forwards calls to the next with no transformation or value
• Simple read requires touching 6+ classes across 4 layers
• Remedy: Collapse pass-through layers; keep only layers that carry real responsibility

Over-Abstraction

Abstraction piled on until the code is impossible to follow:

• Excessive interfaces, generics, factories, and indirection for single implementations
• You can't tell what actually runs without stepping through many hops
• Remedy: Inline single-implementation abstractions; abstract only at real variation points (rule of three)

Futuristic Architecture

Solution built for imagined future requirements that no one can actually predict:

• Extensibility points, plugin systems, config knobs nothing uses
• Most speculative flexibility is wasted effort — closely related to Speculative Generality and YAGNI
• Remedy: Build for today's known requirements; add flexibility when a real second case arrives

Technology-Enthusiast Architecture

New/shiny technology put into production because the architect liked it:

• Unproven tech adopted without validating it fits the problem or scales
• Chasing trends over stability
• Remedy: Evaluate tech against actual requirements; prefer proven tools; prototype before committing

Overkill Architecture

A simple problem solved with a disproportionate amount of architecture and technology:

• Microservices, event sourcing, k8s for a CRUD app with a handful of users
• Remedy: Match architecture weight to problem size (KISS); start simple, evolve when justified

Cloud / Visio Architecture

"Architecture" that exists only in nice diagrams, disconnected from the code and runtime reality:

• Diagrams don't match what's actually deployed; boxes and arrows with no code correspondence
• Remedy: Keep architecture docs grounded in and verified against the real system

Note on the opposite extreme: total lack of architecture (no boundaries, no structure) is equally a smell — see Big Ball of Mud and Missing Architecture. Both under- and over-engineering are failures.

Coupling & Cohesion Smells

Circular Dependencies

Module A → Module B → Module A. Detected via:

• Import graph analysis
• "Cannot access before initialization" errors
• Remedy: Extract shared interface/common module, apply dependency inversion

Content Coupling

One module directly modifying another's internal state. Signs:

• Direct field access across module boundaries
• friend/package-private abuse
• Remedy: Use public APIs, encapsulate internal state

Common Coupling (Global State)

Multiple modules depending on shared global mutable state:

• Global variables, singletons with mutable state
• Ambient context (e.g., CurrentUser static property)
• Remedy: Parameterize, use dependency injection, make state explicit

Stamp Coupling

Passing entire data structures when only a few fields needed:

• Functions receiving large DTOs but using one field
• Remedy: Create focused parameters or smaller interfaces (ISP)

Shotgun Surgery

A single change requires modifications across many files:

• Adding a field touches 5+ files in different modules
• Remedy: Consolidate related behavior, apply Single Responsibility

Feature Envy

A method that uses another class's methods more than its own:

• Method calls other.foo(), other.bar(), other.baz() with few self-calls
• Remedy: Move the method to the class it envies

Data Clumps

Same group of fields appearing together in multiple places:

• (street, city, zip) appearing in 5 method signatures
• Remedy: Extract into a value object

Divergent Change

One module/class is repeatedly changed for many unrelated reasons (the opposite of Shotgun Surgery):

• "I always change these three methods for DB changes, and those two for UI changes" in the same class
• Remedy: Split the class along its axes of change (Single Responsibility)

Inappropriate Intimacy

Two classes are too entangled with each other's internals:

• Reaching into another class's private fields, tight bidirectional references
• Remedy: Move methods/fields to the class they belong to, extract a shared class, or replace with delegation

Message Chains

Long navigation chains like a.getB().getC().getD().doThing():

• Client coupled to the whole object graph; violates the Law of Demeter
• Remedy: Hide delegation — add a method on the first object that returns what the client needs

Middle Man

A class that delegates almost all of its work to another class:

• Most methods just forward calls; adds indirection without value
• Remedy: Remove the middle man and let clients talk to the real object (inline the delegation)

Parallel Inheritance Hierarchies

Every time you add a subclass to one hierarchy, you must add one to another:

• Shape/ShapeRenderer, Employee/EmployeePermission growing in lockstep
• Remedy: Merge hierarchies or make one hierarchy reference the other instead of mirroring it

Code-Level Smells

Long Method

• Methods > 50 lines (or whatever suits the language)
• Deep nesting > 3 levels
• Multiple levels of abstraction mixed
• Remedy: Extract methods at same abstraction level, compose

Long Parameter List

• Methods with > 4 parameters
• Boolean flags controlling behavior
• Remedy: Introduce parameter object, split method, remove flag arguments

Duplicated Code

• Identical or near-identical logic in 3+ places
• Copy-paste with slight variations
• Remedy: Extract shared method, apply Template Method or Strategy pattern

Primitive Obsession

Using primitives instead of domain types:

• string for Email, PhoneNumber, URL
• int for Money, Age, Quantity
• decimal without Currency context
• Remedy: Create value objects with validation and behavior

Magic Numbers/Strings

• Hardcoded literals without explanation
• if (status == 3) instead of if (status == Status.COMPLETED)
• Remedy: Extract named constants or enums

Comments as Deodorant

• Comments that explain what code does (code should be self-documenting)
• Commented-out code blocks
• "TODO" comments accumulating without resolution
• Remedy: Refactor to make code clear, delete dead code, track TODOs as issues

Deep Nesting (Arrow Anti-Pattern)

Loops and conditionals nested so deeply the code drifts rightward into an "arrow" shape:

• if { if { for { if { ... } } } } — hard to trace which conditions hold at any point
• Usually > 3 levels of indentation in one function
• Remedy: Guard clauses / early returns, extract nested blocks into methods, invert conditions, replace conditional with polymorphism

Dead Code

• Unused imports, variables, functions
• Unreachable branches
• Commented-out code in version control
• Remedy: Delete it (git history preserves it if needed)

Data Class

A class that is only fields plus getters/setters, with no meaningful behavior:

• A "data bag" other classes reach into and manipulate from outside
• Closely related to Anemic Domain Model at the class level
• Remedy: Move the behavior that operates on the data into the class ("Tell, Don't Ask")

Lazy Class

A class/module that no longer does enough to justify its existence:

• Left over after refactoring, or an abstraction that never grew
• Remedy: Inline it into its caller or collapse the hierarchy

Speculative Generality

Abstractions, hooks, parameters, or generics added for hypothetical future needs:

• Unused abstract base classes, unused parameters, "just in case" configuration
• Violates YAGNI
• Remedy: Remove unused abstraction; add it when a real second use case appears

Temporary Field

An instance field that is only set/used in certain circumstances and empty otherwise:

• Fields populated only during one algorithm, confusing readers the rest of the time
• Remedy: Extract the field + the methods that use it into their own class (Extract Class / introduce a Method Object)

Testing Smells

No Tests

• Modules with zero test coverage
• Business logic without unit tests
• Remedy: Write characterization tests first, then add behavior tests

Test-Implementation Coupling

• Tests asserting internal method calls, private state, or implementation details
• Tests breaking on refactoring without behavior changes
• Remedy: Test through public APIs, assert behavior not implementation

Test Environment Dependency

• Tests depending on file system, network, database, system clock without mocking
• Non-deterministic tests (flaky tests)
• Remedy: Use test doubles, control environment, use DI

Complexity Smells (Algorithmic Anti-Patterns)

A static complexity pattern is a candidate, not proof of a bottleneck. Apply Measure First:

1. Establish actual input size, call frequency, I/O latency, and whether the path is hot.
2. Prefer a profiler, representative benchmark, query log, trace, or explicit operation count.
3. Promote the candidate to a finding only when the workload and impact justify it.
4. Re-measure the same workload after a fix; without a baseline, do not claim a performance improvement.

For every complexity candidate, state what to measure, when it becomes a finding, and when not to flag it. Keep the Big-O analysis and correctness checks below, but do not infer severity from syntax alone.

Nested Loops (O(n^2) and Worse)

Two or more loops nested inside each other, producing polynomial complexity.

• Detection: for/while inside another for/while; forEach/map inside forEach/map; loop containing another loop (any depth)
• Impact: O(n^2) for double-nested, O(n^3) for triple; explodes with moderate data sizes
• Remedy:
  • Build a Map/Set index for the inner collection → O(n+m)
  • Sort + two-pointer approach → O(n log n)
  • Group/bucket data before iterating
  • Sweep-line for interval/range problems
• Correctness checks: Does order matter? Are there duplicate keys? Is the original picking first/last/all matches?

N+1 Query Pattern

A database query, API call, or I/O operation inside a loop body.

• Detection: fetch()/axios()/query()/execute()/findMany()/findOne()/findUnique()/select()/where() inside any loop construct
• Impact: 1 + N round-trips instead of 1; network latency multiplied by item count
• Remedy:
  • Batch fetch by IDs: SELECT * FROM x WHERE id IN (...) then join in memory
  • Use ORM eager-loading / include / preload / DataLoader
  • Bulk API endpoints accepting arrays
  • Preserve: auth filters, tenancy isolation, ordering, pagination, error semantics
• Correctness checks: Don't fetch records the original per-item logic wouldn't authorize; preserve missing-record behavior

Repeated Linear Scan (Missing Index)

Linear search (includes, indexOf, .find, in_array) inside a loop, where a Set/Map would give O(1) lookup.

• Detection: .includes() / .indexOf() / .find() / .findIndex() / in_array() / contains() inside a loop body
• Impact: O(n*m) instead of O(n+m) — each iteration scans the entire collection
• Remedy: Build a Set (for membership) or Map (for key→value lookup) once before the loop
• Correctness checks: Does equality semantics change after Set conversion? JavaScript object identity vs. value equality; Python hashability

Sort-in-Loop

Sorting inside a loop body, repeating O(n log n) work unnecessarily.

• Detection: .sort() / sorted() / sort() inside any iterative block
• Impact: O(k * n log n) instead of O(n log n) — sort repeated k times
• Remedy:
  • Sort once outside the loop
  • Maintain a heap (PriorityQueue) if incremental top-K is needed
  • Use binary search/insertion into sorted collection
• Correctness checks: Is each intermediate sorted state externally observable? Does comparator depend on loop-local state?

Render-Path Recompute (UI Complexity)

Expensive data transformation (filter→map→sort chains) inside UI component render bodies, recomputed on every render.

• Detection: .filter().map().sort().reduce() chains inside React/Vue/Svelte component function bodies; inside function Component() or const Component = () => in JSX/TSX
• Impact: Re-derivation on every state change even if inputs unchanged; jank with large collections
• Remedy:
  • useMemo / computed / derived with correct dependency arrays
  • Move derivation to selectors, loaders, or server-side
  • Virtualize long lists (windowing)
  • Stabilize callbacks and object props only when child renders are affected
• Correctness checks: Dependency arrays must include every semantic input; memoization must not hide mutations of mutable inputs

Pairwise Comparison

Comparing every element with every other element using double-nested iteration.

• Detection: Two nested loops iterating the same or similar collections, comparing pairs
• Impact: O(n^2) for pair matching, overlap detection, conflict checking, nearest-neighbor
• Remedy:
  • Sort + two-pointer for pair/range matching
  • Sweep-line for interval overlaps
  • Spatial hashing or grid bucketing for proximity
  • Union-find for connectivity
• Correctness checks: Order stability; tie-breaking in equality cases

Unnecessary Recompute (Missing Memoization)

Same pure computation repeated with same inputs without caching.

• Detection: Identical function calls with same arguments in hot paths; repeated expensive transforms; recursive calls without memoization
• Impact: Linear/polynomial wasted work; especially bad with recursive Fibonacci-style patterns (O(2^n) → O(n) with memo)
• Remedy: Add memoization/caching with proper invalidation; use lru_cache/memoize/useMemo as appropriate

Wrong Data Structure

Using a suboptimal data structure for the access pattern.

• Detection:
  • Array/List used for frequent membership tests → should be Set
  • Array/List used for key-value lookups → should be Map/Object
  • Array used as queue with shift()/pop(0) (O(n) per dequeue) → should use proper Queue
  • Sorted insertion into array (O(n) per insert) → should use Heap
• Remedy: Replace with the data structure whose complexity matches the access pattern:
  • Set → O(1) has/add/delete
  • Map → O(1) get/set
  • Heap → O(log n) push/pop for priority
  • Queue/Deque → O(1) enqueue/dequeue

What NOT to Flag

• Cold paths: Complexity that only runs on startup, config loading, or tiny N (< 100) is rarely worth fixing
• Intentional tradeoffs: Clear, readable O(n) code where O(n log n) would add complexity with no measurable gain
• Already optimized: Map/Set already in use; batch loading already implemented; memoization already present

Design Principle Violations

Use the canonical matrix in Step 3 as the reporting contract. These design checks refine candidate detection; they do not create one finding per principle.

• SOLID umbrella: Use only when multiple SOLID concerns share one root cause or a narrower lens is not reliable.
• SRP: Confirm independent reasons to change; size alone is insufficient.
• OCP: Confirm repeated edits for a real variant; do not replace a simple local conditional with speculative polymorphism.
• LSP: Subtypes must preserve the base contract's preconditions, postconditions, and invariants. Report as SOLID/LSP.
• ISP: Confirm clients depend on methods they do not use. Report as SOLID/ISP.
• DIP: Confirm high-level policy is coupled to concrete mechanism in a way that harms testing or replacement; a single implementation does not automatically justify an interface.
• DRY: Deduplicate shared knowledge, not coincidentally similar syntax.
• KISS and YAGNI: Reject abstractions whose future variation or leverage is not demonstrated.
• Composition: Prefer it when inheritance exposes unwanted behavior or binds independent variation axes—not as a mechanical rule.
• Separation of Concerns: Confirm policy, presentation, persistence, or I/O leakage across an intended boundary.
• Fail Fast: Detect invalid state near its source while preserving established error, retry, transaction, and cleanup semantics.
• Measure First: Lower unmeasured optimization claims to candidates instead of reporting a second "principle violation."

Object-Orientation Abusers (from Fowler / refactoring.guru)

Switch Statements (Type-Code Conditionals)

Repeated switch/if-else chains that branch on a type code or enum:

• The same conditional structure duplicated in several places
• Adding a new type forces editing every switch (OCP violation)
• Remedy: Replace conditional with polymorphism (Strategy/State), or Replace Type Code with Subclasses

Refused Bequest

A subclass inherits methods/fields it doesn't need:

• Overrides inherited methods to throw, no-op, or do something unrelated
• Signals the inheritance relationship is wrong
• Remedy: Push down unused members, or replace inheritance with delegation

Alternative Classes with Different Interfaces

Two classes perform the same role but expose differently-named methods:

• sort() vs arrange(), getUser() vs fetchUser() for interchangeable classes
• Remedy: Unify the interface (rename methods, extract a common superclass/interface)

Incomplete Library Class

A third-party/library class lacks methods you need and can't be modified:

• Scattered helper functions or copy-paste wrappers around the library
• Remedy: Introduce a Foreign Method or wrap it in an adapter/local extension class

Other refactoring.guru smells are documented in their thematic sections above: Divergent Change, Data Class, Lazy Class, Speculative Generality, Temporary Field, Parallel Inheritance Hierarchies, Inappropriate Intimacy, Message Chains, and Middle Man.

Edge Cases & Fallback

Report Output Example

🔍 Architecture Smell Analysis Complete

Project: goal-workflow
Style: Modular Monolith (with some layering violations)
Files Analyzed: 47
Health: 🟡 Fair

Critical: 3  |  Warnings: 6  |  Suggestions: 9

🔴 Critical Issues:
  1. Anemic Domain Model — `models/` classes have only getters/setters,
     all logic in `services/`. Violates DDD Rich Domain Model principle.
  2. N+1 Query Pattern — `services/order.ts:142` fetches user per order in loop;
     should batch-load users by IDs (O(n*m) → O(n+m)).
  3. Static Cling — `util/ApiClient.ts` uses all static methods,
     making consumer code untestable.

🟡 Warnings:
  1. God Object — `services/workflow.ts` at 847 lines handles too many concerns
  2. Nested Loop O(n^2) — `analytics.ts:89` pairwise comparison of events;
     sort+two-pointer would be O(n log n)
  3. Leaky Abstraction — `repositories/user.ts` exposes MongoDB query syntax
  4. Duplicated Code — validation logic duplicated across 4 controllers
  5. Circular Dependency — `auth` ↔ `user` modules depend on each other
  6. Magic Numbers — ~23 hardcoded values without named constants

Full report: tasks/smell-report-2026-05-27-1530.md