清理 AI 生成程式碼：2026 年實戰指南

Last updated: October 2026

Cleaning up AI-generated code means three things, in order: finding out what you actually have, deciding what deserves to survive, and putting guardrails in place so the next batch arrives clean. Most teams start with tooling. The teams that get out of the hole start with triage.

This playbook covers why agent-written code degrades, how to triage an AI-heavy codebase, what the cleanup options actually are, and how to keep the problem from coming back.

Why AI-generated code turns into debt

Coding agents shipped a staggering amount of code in 2025 and 2026. Much of it works. The problems show up later, when somebody has to change it, and they follow recognizable patterns:

It's a house of cards. Brittle and inflexible: you can't change one thing without risking the system, so teams cope by never touching it. The code works until the first modification, which is another way of saying it's unmaintained by design.

It can't be verified. Spaghetti structure makes meaningful test coverage nearly impossible to retrofit. Tests that assert the current behavior of tangled code mostly lock the tangle in place.

It buries signal in volume. Agents generate so much boilerplate that reviewers read more code than ever and still miss serious bugs. Review fatigue is a direct function of generated volume.

It hides its own failures. When an agent hits an error, it tends to add another check and retry until the symptom disappears. The root problem stays, with more code piled on top. Grep an agent-heavy codebase for nested try/except blocks around the same call and you'll usually find this archaeology.

It duplicates logic everywhere. The same problem gets solved differently in different places, so one fix leaves copies of the bug behind.

It over-engineers, and it creates dependency. Simple features become frameworks. And when the only party who can maintain the output is the vendor whose agent produced it, you've recreated consulting-firm lock-in with extra steps.

None of this means agents were a mistake. It means generation was never the hard part. Making the result effective, maintainable, and safe to change is the hard part.

Step 1: Triage before tooling

Before touching any cleanup tool, map the blast radius. Three questions per module or service:

1. Does it carry business logic that must survive? If yes, it needs behavior-preserving treatment, not a rewrite from vibes.
2. Does anything else depend on it? Duplicated logic means a fix in one place can leave the bug alive in five others. You need the call-site map before you need the refactoring tool.
3. Can you verify it today? If there's no way to prove behavior is preserved, any cleanup is a gamble. Verification capability, not code quality, is what separates "refactor it" from "replace it".

The output of triage is a split: code worth fixing in place, code worth replacing wholesale, and code to quarantine and stop touching until one of the first two becomes possible.

Step 2: Pick the right class of tool for each bucket

Different cleanup jobs need fundamentally different tools, and most bad outcomes come from using one class for another's job.

Rule-based refactoring engines (OpenRewrite and its ecosystem, Codemod and the jscodeshift lineage for JS/TS) excel at mechanical, repeatable transformations across large codebases: dependency upgrades, API migrations, pattern rewrites. They're deterministic and auditable. They won't untangle logic they don't have a recipe for.

Coding assistants (Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code and peers) are effective for local, supervised cleanup: a function here, a module there, with a developer reading every diff. They're the wrong tool for fleet-wide debt reduction, because the review bottleneck that created the problem is still the bottleneck.

Governed migration platforms treat the cleanup as a program rather than a series of edits: a plan a human approves, work shipped as reviewable milestones, and behavior verified against the original system. Morph by Modelcode is built on this model, and its answer to the duplication problem is structural: everything Morph writes is brand new, so a full migration produces a fresh codebase with zero dead code and zero duplicated logic, and on modular migrations everything it delivers is clean while surrounding legacy code stays as is until you migrate it. It also ships the integration tests it used to verify each milestone along with the code, so the verification evidence lives in your repo. The trade-off versus assistants is deliberateness: you get governance and proof, not an autocomplete.

The honest rule of thumb: assistants for spot cleanup, rule engines for mechanical sweeps, governed platforms when the debt is structural and behavior has to be proven, not assumed.

Step 3: Make verified the default state

Whatever tooling you pick, cleanup that doesn't change your process just schedules the next cleanup. The teams that stay out of the hole converge on the same guardrails:

• A human-approved plan before generation. Scope, target, and acceptance criteria defined before any code is written, by human or agent.
• Small, reviewable changes mapped to that plan. If a change is too big to review, it's too big to trust.
• Behavioral verification, not just unit tests. Run the old and new paths through the same real journeys and compare what actually happens. A green unit test on tangled code proves little; identical observed behavior proves the thing you care about.
• Evidence attached to every change. The reviewer of record, the tests that ran, the results. When an auditor or a future maintainer asks "why did this change", the answer should already exist.
• You decide the patterns. Which frameworks to standardize on, which to deprecate and throw away forever. The moment the agent decides, you're back in the dependency trap.

FAQ

How do I clean up AI-generated code without breaking things?
Triage first: separate code that carries business logic from scaffolding. Fix in place only what you can verify today; replace wholesale what you can't. Behavior comparison against the original system (same inputs, same observed outputs and side effects) is the only trustworthy safety net for code nobody fully understands.

Is AI-generated technical debt different from normal technical debt?
Mostly in velocity and shape. It accumulates faster than human-written debt, duplicates logic rather than centralizing it, and hides failures behind retry layers. The remediation principles are classical; the volume is not.

Should I refactor AI-written code or regenerate it?
If it's verifiable and the structure is salvageable, refactor with rule-based tools and supervised assistants. If verification is impossible or duplication is structural, regeneration under governance (approved plan, milestone reviews, behavioral verification) is usually cheaper than archaeology. The deciding question is whether you can prove behavior is preserved.

How do teams maintain code written by AI agents long term?
By making verification the default state: integration tests shipped with every change, evidence attached to every merge, and human sign-off as a hard gate. Teams that treat agent output like vendor code (reviewed, verified, owned) maintain it fine. Teams that treat it like finished work don't.