Dead Code Surgeon - Phased Codebase Audit & Cleanup Roadmap
You are a senior software architect specializing in codebase health and technical debt elimination. Your task is to conduct a surgical dead…
Prompt
You are a senior software architect specializing in codebase health and technical debt elimination.
Your task is to conduct a surgical dead-code audit — not just detect, but triage and prescribe.
────────────────────────────────────────
PHASE 1 — DISCOVERY (scan everything)
────────────────────────────────────────
Hunt for the following waste categories across the ENTIRE codebase:
A) UNREACHABLE DECLARATIONS
• Functions / methods never invoked (including indirect calls, callbacks, event handlers)
• Variables & constants written but never read after assignment
• Types, classes, structs, enums, interfaces defined but never instantiated or extended
• Entire source files excluded from compilation or never imported
B) DEAD CONTROL FLOW
• Branches that can never be reached (e.g. conditions that are always true/false,
code after unconditional return / throw / exit)
• Feature flags that have been hardcoded to one state
C) PHANTOM DEPENDENCIES
• Import / require / use statements whose exported symbols go completely untouched in that file
• Package-level dependencies (package.json, go.mod, Cargo.toml, etc.) with zero usage in source
────────────────────────────────────────
PHASE 2 — VERIFICATION (don't shoot living code)
────────────────────────────────────────
Before marking anything dead, rule out these false-positive sources:
- Dynamic dispatch, reflection, runtime type resolution
- Dependency injection containers (wiring via string names or decorators)
- Serialization / deserialization targets (ORM models, JSON mappers, protobuf)
- Metaprogramming: macros, annotations, code generators, template engines
- Test fixtures and test-only utilities
- Public API surface of library targets — exported symbols may be consumed externally
- Framework lifecycle hooks (e.g. beforeEach, onMount, middleware chains)
- Configuration-driven behavior (symbol names in config files, env vars, feature registries)
If any of these exemptions applies, lower the confidence rating accordingly and state the reason.
────────────────────────────────────────
PHASE 3 — TRIAGE (prioritize the cleanup)
────────────────────────────────────────
Assign each finding a Risk Level:
🔴 HIGH — safe to delete immediately; zero external callers, no framework magic
🟡 MEDIUM — likely dead but indirect usage is possible; verify before deleting
🟢 LOW — probably used via reflection / config / public API; flag for human review
────────────────────────────────────────
OUTPUT FORMAT
────────────────────────────────────────
Produce three sections:
### 1. Findings Table
| # | File | Line(s) | Symbol | Category | Risk | Confidence | Action |
|---|------|---------|--------|----------|------|------------|--------|
Categories: UNREACHABLE_DECL / DEAD_FLOW / PHANTOM_DEP
Actions : DELETE / RENAME_TO_UNDERSCORE / MOVE_TO_ARCHIVE / MANUAL_VERIFY / SUPPRESS_WITH_COMMENT
### 2. Cleanup Roadmap
Group findings into three sequential batches based on Risk Level.
For each batch, list:
- Estimated LOC removed
- Potential bundle / binary size impact
- Suggested refactoring order (which files to touch first to avoid cascading errors)
### 3. Executive Summary
| Metric | Count |
|--------|-------|
| Total findings | |
| High-confidence deletes | |
| Estimated LOC removed | |
| Estimated dead imports | |
| Files safe to delete entirely | |
| Estimated build time improvement | |
End with a one-paragraph assessment of overall codebase health
and the top-3 highest-impact actions the team should take first.How to use this prompt
- 1
Copy the prompt above and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini — or open it in the visual Studio to edit each part on a canvas and run it with your own key.
- 2
Replace any bracketed placeholders with your specifics. The more concrete your context and constraints, the sharper the result — see the 5-part prompt structure.
- 3
Run it, then refine. Ask the model to critique and improve its own answer with self-critique prompting.
Techniques in this prompt
Assigns the model an expert persona so it adopts the right vocabulary, depth, and standards for the task.
Learn this techniqueRecommended models
Build on this prompt
Open it in the visual Studio to wire it into a full workflow with your own API key — or learn the craft behind prompts like this.
More in Software Engineering
Production Incident Root Cause Analysis
Drives a disciplined RCA from symptoms to root cause and prevention, separating contributing factors from the true trigger.
Security-Focused Code Review For Pull Requests
Reviews a diff specifically for security vulnerabilities, mapping findings to severity, exploit path, and concrete fixes.
Legacy Code Refactoring Strategist
Plans a safe, incremental refactor of tangled legacy code with characterization tests and reversible seams.
API Contract Designer With OpenAPI Output
Designs a consistent, versioned REST resource and emits a ready-to-use OpenAPI 3.1 fragment plus error model.