extract-function

A refactoring guide for moving a block of code into a named function with suitable types and tests.

In plain words
What is it for?
Extract a selected code block, choose a descriptive function name, add the replacement call, include documentation where appropriate, and identify possible reuse.
Why use it?
It helps reduce tangled code by identifying the block’s inputs, outputs, and single responsibility before changing it.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/berkcangumusisik/claude-code-practices/extract-function
Any agent
npx skills add berkcangumusisik/claude-code-practices --skill extract-function
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/berkcangumusisik/claude-code-practices

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 17 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 237 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00017 $0.00237
Opus 5 $0.00009 $0.00118
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00047
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00024

Measured 3d ago against content hash f719b5e13fbb, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

extract-function 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 3d 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.

skills/extract-function/SKILL.md · 34 lines

What it actually says

Extract Function

File: $1 Lines: $2

  1. Read the file, locate the specified lines.

  2. Analyze the block:

    • What are the inputs? (variables read from outer scope)
    • What are the outputs? (values written to or returned)
    • What is the single responsibility of this block?
  3. Propose a function name that describes what it does (verb phrase).

  4. Show the extracted function with:

    • Proper TypeScript/language types
    • JSDoc if the file uses JSDoc
    • The call site replacement
  5. Ask for confirmation, then:

    • Add the new function (above the calling function, or in a utils file if appropriate)
    • Replace the original block with the function call
  6. Note if this function would be useful elsewhere in the codebase.

Changes

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.

  1. 3d ago First seen · 34 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A f719b5e13fbb

Subscribe to this mod's changes

extract-function is a skill published in the GitHub repository berkcangumusisik/claude-code-practices (10 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 237 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.