Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fockus/skill-memory-bankWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/fockus/skill-memory-bank/refactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/fockus/skill-memory-bank/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/fockus/skill-memory-bank/refactor/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/fockus/skill-memory-bank/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/fockus/skill-memory-bank/refactor.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00031 | $0.00224 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00090 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00045 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00022 |
Grade A, and why
refactor scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Goal: refactor $ARGUMENTS
0. Validate arguments
If $ARGUMENTS is empty, stop and ask the user which module / file / subsystem to refactor. Do not proceed with an empty target.
1. Read all module files and related tests
- Run the existing tests and capture a baseline (everything should pass)
- Identify violations of
SOLID,DRY,KISS, and Clean Architecture - Draft a refactoring plan and show it to me
- After approval, refactor step by step
- After each step, run tests — everything must still pass
- If new tests are needed, write them before refactoring
- Finish with a full test run and compare against the baseline
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago Changed · +23 tokens per session 22e565c3e890
- 1mo ago First seen · 20 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A 93695945930d
refactor is a command published in the GitHub repository fockus/skill-memory-bank (26 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 224 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
sota-audit
Audit this codebase against the library — agree and pin the scope, route from the surfaces rather than from whatever happened to get loaded, map the trust boundaries, run the scanners, walk every applicable rules file's Audit checklist item by item, ask the questions that need a decision, then fix what you agree to.…
sota-deep-audit
The heavy audit — a hostile review of a whole repository by someone who will inherit it: the threat model reconstructed from the code and a control-presence matrix built against it, then code, history, decisions, results and forward plan, fanned out across independent agents, load-bearing claims re-measured this…
unity-review
Full Unity-aware code review — checks serialization safety, performance, architecture, and Unity-specific pitfalls.
review
Run code review on recent changes.
api-review
Review API design for REST conventions and best practices.
db-review
Review database schema, queries, and migrations.