check-similarity-mbt

name: check-similarity-mbt description: Detect duplicate MoonBit code using AST-based similarity analysis. Use when working with .mbt files and looking for code duplication, refactoring opportunities, or enforcing code quality. argument-hint: "[path] [--threshold 0.85] [--print]" allowed-tools: Bash(similarity-mbt *) Bash(cargo run -p similarity-mbt ) Read Grep Glob paths: "**/.mbt"

MoonBit Code Similarity Detection

What to do

Run similarity-mbt on the target MoonBit project to detect duplicate functions, then analyze the results and propose a refactoring plan.

If similarity-mbt is not installed:

cargo install similarity-mbt

Step 1: Run similarity analysis

Run with the arguments provided, or use sensible defaults:

similarity-mbt $ARGUMENTS

If no arguments are given, scan the current directory:

similarity-mbt . --threshold 0.85 --min-lines 5

Step 2: Analyze the results

Read the output and categorize duplicate pairs:

High-priority refactoring targets

• 100% similarity: Exact structural duplicates. Extract into a shared function with parameters.
• 95-100% similarity: Near-identical. Usually differ by 1-2 identifiers or values. Parameterize the difference.
• X/Y axis pairs (e.g. get_width vs get_height, offset_x vs offset_y): Common in layout/graphics code. Abstract with an axis parameter or generic.

Medium-priority

• 85-95% similarity: Same algorithm with minor structural differences. Consider extracting the common pattern.
• async/sync variants: Same logic duplicated for async and sync versions. Consider a shared core function.
• _with_options variants (e.g. parse_rule vs parse_rule_with_diagnostics): Use optional parameters or builder pattern.

Low-priority / acceptable

• Protocol handler boilerplate: Large sets of nearly identical dispatch functions. Better solved with code generation or macros if available.
• Small accessors (< 5 lines, 85-90%): Short functions naturally look similar. Usually not worth refactoring.

Step 3: Propose refactoring

For each high-priority pair, suggest a concrete refactoring:

1. Show the two duplicate functions
2. Propose the unified version
3. Explain what callers need to change

Key CLI Options

Effective Thresholds

• 0.95+: Nearly identical (variable renames only)
• 0.85-0.95: Same algorithm, minor differences
• 0.75-0.85: Similar structure, different details
• 0.70-0.75: Related logic, worth investigating

Workflow tips

• Start with --threshold 0.9 to find obvious duplicates, then lower to 0.85
• Use --print to see actual code for top pairs
• Use --min-lines 5 to skip trivial accessors
• Use --filter-function <name> to focus on a specific function
• For CI: similarity-mbt . --threshold 0.95 --fail-on-duplicates --min-lines 5

Common MoonBit refactoring patterns

Axis parameterization

// Before: two functions
fn get_width(self) -> Double { ... }
fn get_height(self) -> Double { ... }

// After: one function with axis parameter
fn get_dimension(self, axis : Axis) -> Double { ... }

Operation abstraction

// Before: set_attribute / remove_attribute with identical structure
// After: shared body with operation parameter or closure
fn modify_attribute(self, node, name, op : (Map[String, String], String) -> Unit) -> Result[Unit, Error] { ... }

Optional parameter consolidation

// Before: parse_rule / parse_rule_with_diagnostics
// After: single function with optional diagnostics collector
fn parse_rule(self, diagnostics~ : Array[Diagnostic]? = None) -> Rule { ... }