https://github.com/kotivskyi/ai-project-refactoring
Testing AI refactoring suggestions on realworld project
https://github.com/kotivskyi/ai-project-refactoring
ai aicodeassistant llvm refactoring-tools
Last synced: 8 months ago
JSON representation
Testing AI refactoring suggestions on realworld project
- Host: GitHub
- URL: https://github.com/kotivskyi/ai-project-refactoring
- Owner: Kotivskyi
- Created: 2025-01-14T14:02:01.000Z (over 1 year ago)
- Default Branch: main
- Last Pushed: 2025-01-18T18:14:20.000Z (over 1 year ago)
- Last Synced: 2025-07-06T04:37:42.984Z (12 months ago)
- Topics: ai, aicodeassistant, llvm, refactoring-tools
- Homepage:
- Size: 272 KB
- Stars: 0
- Watchers: 1
- Forks: 0
- Open Issues: 0
-
Metadata Files:
- Readme: README.md
Awesome Lists containing this project
README
# ai-refactoring-suggestions
Testing AI refactoring suggestions on real-world project
Project used for analysis: https://github.com/abi/screenshot-to-code
Token counter: https://github.com/felvin-search/token-count
**Models Tested:**
- O1
- Gemini-2.0-flash-thinking-exp
- Claude-sonnet-3.5-sonnet-20240620
- ChatGPT-4o
- DeepThink
**Context:**
Project_summary.md (332387 tokens). Generated using [code2prompt](https://github.com/raphaelmansuy/code2prompt)
**Prompt:**
"Here's our current code base @project_summary.md. Can you propose improvements or a refactoring plan? Give me a bullet list of such improvements with priorities (High/Medium/Low) and a short explanation of why this improvement is needed and what has to be done for each item."
## Suggested Improvements Comparison (O1 vs Gemini)
| Improvement | O1 (Priority) | Gemini-2.0-flash-thinking-exp (Priority) | Subjective Ranking |
| ------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | ---------------------------------------- | ------------- |
| Centralize Configuration Files | ❌ | ✅ (High) | (Medium) Makes sense, Configs will be easier to support in the future |
| Improve Component Organization in Frontend | ✅ (High) | ✅ (High) | (High) Definitely worth doing, high risk of having spaghetti code |
| Standardize Naming Conventions / Linter Rules | ✅ (Medium) | ✅ (Medium) | (High) A good linter should be able to solve it |
| Group Backend Routes | ❌ | ✅ (Medium) | (Medium-Low) Only if we are planning to add more routes |
| Review Utility and Helper Functions | ✅ (Medium) | ✅ (Low) | (Medium) Worth checking if there are any duplicates. Why are there 2 places for utility functions? |
| Consolidate Test Directories | ✅ (Low) | ✅ (Low) | (Medium) Definitely YES |
| Add Consistent Error Handling | ✅ (High) | ❌ | (Medium) Good point, especially if we are aiming for good code quality and not just a demo |
| Improve TypeScript Strictness | ✅ (High) | ❌ | (Low) Up to the taste of developers. TypeScript strictness is kind of painful already |
| Extract Reusable Layout Components | ✅ (Medium) | ❌ | (Low) Sounds good, but need to take a look at what can be reused |
| Improve Comments and Documentation | ✅ (Low) | ❌ | (Medium) It is always a trade-off between development speed and documentation, if there was a way to employ AI to do it |
| Optimize for Performance Where Relevant | ✅ (Low) | ❌ | (Low) Only spend time on it if there is a clear bottleneck |
| Enhance Testing Coverage | ✅ (Low) | ❌ | (Medium) Maybe let AI do it. Never seen a developer willing to add tests when a feature is already working. |