AI can be a serious speed boost for refactoring—until it isn’t. The tricky part with legacy isn’t “will the code compile.” It’s whether behavior stays the same, edge cases survive, and security doesn’t quietly regress.

And the industry is already feeling the “verification gap.” Sonar’s State of Code Developer Survey reports that developers estimate 42% of their committed code is AI-assisted, yet 96% don’t fully trust AI output to be functionally correct, and only 48% always check AI-assisted code before committing. That’s how teams end up with “verification debt”—changes that look fine in a diff but break in production.

The goal of these guardrails is simple: turn AI into something you can trust in production — which is the real point of practices for AI legacy code refactoring. Below are best practices for AI refactoring legacy code you can actually operationalize: testing, constraints, review discipline, security gates, and controlled deployments.

7 Best Practices for AI Refactoring Legacy Code

Below are best practices for refactoring legacy code you can actually operationalize — and they align with the broader best practices for refactoring legacy code: testing, constraints, review discipline, security gates, and controlled deployments.

1. Lock behavior before you refactor

Legacy refactoring goes sideways when you refactor what you think the code does—not what it actually does. Before you let AI touch anything meaningful, “lock” behavior in place.

What this looks like in real teams

• Characterization tests (sometimes ugly, always useful): tests that capture today’s behavior, including weird edge cases.
• Golden files / snapshot-style checks for complex outputs.
• A small regression harness around the flows that matter (billing, auth paths, pricing rules, data transforms).

This is one of the most underrated practices for legacy code refactoring because it reduces the main risk of AI: silent behavioral drift. It also gives you a clean standard for PR review: if tests say behavior changed, prove it’s intentional.

Use this rule as a gate: no characterization tests → no AI refactor on that area.

2. Ship refactors as tiny PRs

AI makes it tempting to do a “big cleanup” in one go. That’s exactly how you get a PR nobody fully understands—and a regression nobody can pin down.

Instead, treat refactoring like surgery:

• One PR = one intent.
• Keep diffs narrow: a function, a file, a single module boundary.
• Ship sequences of small improvements rather than one “perfect” rewrite.

This is one of the safest practices for refactoring legacy code, and it also makes AI outputs easier to validate. Small PRs mean reviewers can actually read the diff, and you can isolate what caused a behavior change.

If you want a simple internal rule: if a reviewer can’t explain what changed in under a minute, the PR is too big.

3. Write constraints, not wishes

If you want consistent outcomes, don’t ask AI to “refactor this nicely.” Give it constraints that protect the system’s contract.

Examples of constraints worth writing down (and reusing as a template):

• Do not change public interfaces (method signatures, API contracts) unless explicitly requested.
• Do not alter business logic unless you add/adjust tests that prove the change is intentional.
• Do not touch auth/crypto/payments without an explicit owner review.
• Do not remove “unused” code unless you confirm usage (logs, tracing, consumers, or search across repos).
• Do not rewrite SQL/data logic unless you keep output identical and validate performance impact.

These constraints are your guardrails. They prevent AI from “helpfully” optimizing something it doesn’t understand—especially in systems with hidden dependencies.

In practice, they become your internal “AI refactor policy” — one of the most effective practices for AI refactoring legacy code when documentation is missing and risk is high.

4. Package the context

AI refactoring quality correlates strongly with the quality of context. The model can’t respect boundaries it doesn’t know exist.

What to include in your prompt/context package

• The goal: “refactor for readability,” “reduce duplication,” “simplify branching,” etc.
• The boundaries: what must not change (behavior, outputs, public interfaces).
• The “shape” of correct output: example inputs/outputs, or reference logs.
• Links/snippets from adjacent modules or interfaces the code depends on.
• Project rules: linter rules, naming conventions, error-handling patterns.

Also: don’t feed secrets, tokens, or PII into prompts. If you can’t share a piece of context safely, summarize it (e.g., “this method validates user session and returns 401 on failure”) rather than pasting the real code or data.

This is one of the most practical practices for AI refactoring legacy code because it reduces hallucinated assumptions and makes outputs predictable enough to review.

5. Make domain review non-optional

AI can generate code that looks correct—clean, idiomatic, confident—and still be wrong in subtle ways. That’s why “human-in-the-loop” isn’t a slogan; it’s a requirement.

Even outside legacy refactoring, multiple sources show a trust gap:

• Stack Overflow’s 2024 AI section reports 76% of respondents are using or planning to use AI tools, but trust in accuracy is much lower (their blog highlights only 43% trust accuracy).
• Sonar’s survey shows many developers don’t fully trust AI output, yet verification habits are inconsistent.

What “mandatory” should mean operationally

• A real reviewer with domain ownership signs off (not just “any dev”).
• Review focuses on invariants: outputs, boundary behavior, error cases, and backward compatibility.
• If behavior changes, it must be proven by tests and justified in the PR description.

This is part of best practices for AI refactoring legacy code because it protects you from the most expensive class of bugs: quiet ones.

6. Run security gates independently

A clean refactor can still introduce security regressions. And AI assistance can make that worse in a very specific way: developers become more confident even when code is less secure.

A well-cited user study (Perry et al.) found that participants using an AI code assistant wrote significantly less secure code and were more likely to believe it was secure.
Separate research on Copilot-style suggestions has also shown a meaningful share of vulnerable outputs; one targeted replication study reports vulnerable suggestion rates that decreased over time but still remained notable (e.g., 27.25% vulnerable suggestions in their setting).

So: do not treat “AI review + human review” as security coverage. Keep security gates independent and automatic.

Security gates that should run on every refactor

• Dependency scanning / SBOM checks
• Secrets scanning
• SAST baseline checks
• Basic policy checks for auth-related changes
• Optional: targeted rules for your stack (e.g., injection patterns)

This is a core part of best practices for refactoring legacy code in an AI era: security checks must be consistent, boring, and non-negotiable—because humans get tired and AI can be persuasive.

7. Refactor only with rollback

Legacy refactoring is not “just code quality.” It’s production risk management. A rollback plan is what makes small steps safe—and what prevents one “clean refactor” from becoming an incident postmortem.

A rollback plan should be practical, not theoretical:

• A release strategy that supports rollback (feature flags, canary, blue-green where appropriate).
• A defined “stop condition” (what metrics trigger rollback).
• A rehearsed process (who rolls back, how fast, what gets communicated).

This is one of those practices for refactoring legacy code that teams say they have—until the moment they need it. If you can’t roll back quickly, you can’t refactor aggressively.

Want to adopt these guardrails without slowing delivery? Start with a 1–2 week “safety setup”: characterization tests for critical flows, PR constraints, automated security gates, and a rollout strategy that supports fast rollback.

Learn more about CodeGeeks Solutions and see client feedback on Clutch.

Final Thoughts

AI can absolutely help refactor legacy code—but only if you treat it like a powerful assistant inside a well-designed process. The teams that get value from AI refactoring don’t rely on vibes; they rely on contracts (tests), discipline (small PRs), clear constraints, human judgment, independent security checks, and rollback-ready releases.

If you implement these practices for AI legacy code refactoring, you’ll spend less time “cleaning up after the refactor” and more time actually modernizing the system.

FAQ

When should you avoid AI refactoring entirely?

Avoid it when the change touches high-risk areas (auth/crypto/payments), when you can’t validate behavior (no tests and no ability to create characterization tests), or when the code interacts with sensitive data and you don’t have a safe policy for context sharing. In those cases, use AI for analysis/explanations—not for direct code changes.

How much test coverage is “enough” before refactoring?

A percentage is a weak target. “Enough” means your critical behaviors are locked: core workflows, error paths, and the outputs other systems rely on. Characterization tests around these areas often matter more than broad but shallow coverage. This is one of the most practical practices for legacy code refactoring in real projects.

What’s the safest PR size for AI-assisted refactors?

Small enough that a reviewer can fully understand it—typically a single module or a tight scope change. If the PR needs a long walkthrough to explain, it’s too big. Smaller PRs also make rollback and debugging much easier.

How do you prevent AI from changing behavior silently?

Start with characterization tests, enforce constraints (“don’t change behavior”), keep PRs small, and require reviewers to verify invariants. If behavior changes, make it explicit in tests and PR notes—never let it slip through as a “cleanup.”

Which security checks should run on every refactor?

At minimum: dependency scanning/SBOM, secrets scanning, and SAST checks. Add stack-specific rules for injection and auth patterns where possible. The key is independence: security checks should not depend on whether the AI output “looks clean.”

‍