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.
npx skills add clay-good/OpenLore --skill openlore-execute-refactorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/clay-good/OpenLoreWrote 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/skills/clay-good/openlore/openlore-execute-refactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/clay-good/openlore/openlore-execute-refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/clay-good/openlore/openlore-execute-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/skills/clay-good/openlore/openlore-execute-refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/clay-good/openlore/openlore-execute-refactor.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 69 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00041 | $0.02338 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00935 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00468 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00234 |
Grade A, and why
openlore-execute-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 1mo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 244 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
openlore: Execute Refactor
When to use this skill
Trigger this skill when the user asks to apply a refactoring plan, with phrasings like:
- "apply the refactor plan"
- "execute the planned refactoring"
- explicit command
/openlore-execute-refactor
Prerequisite: the openlore-plan-refactor skill must have been run and the plan confirmed.
The file .openlore/refactor-plan.md must exist.
⚠️ Fundamental principle — each change is a complete mini-development
Each change in the plan is treated as an independent, self-contained development unit. The cycle for every single change, without exception:
READ plan entry
→ EDIT (targeted tool, ≤ 50 lines touched)
→ DIFF (git diff --stat + git diff — verify no lost code)
→ TEST (run the test gate from the plan)
├─ green → mark ✅ in plan, move to next change
└─ red → git checkout HEAD -- <file>
diagnose the failure
retry from EDIT (attempt 2, then 3)
if still red after 3 attempts → STOP (see circuit-breaker below)
Never accumulate broken state. Never skip the test gate. Never batch two changes before testing.
Circuit-breaker — 3 failed attempts
If a change fails its test gate 3 times in a row, stop immediately and report:
"Change N (
<label>) failed after 3 attempts. The working tree has been restored to the last green state. Options: a) Split this change into smaller sub-changes (≤ 50 lines each) and update the plan b) Return to planning (/openlore-plan-refactor) to redesign this step c) Skip this change and continue — note the acceptance criteria may not be fully met"
Do not attempt a 4th retry without explicit user instruction.
Step 1 — Read the plan
Read .openlore/refactor-plan.md from the project directory.
If the file does not exist, stop immediately:
"No refactor plan found at
.openlore/refactor-plan.md. Please run/openlore-plan-refactorfirst."
Extract and display a summary:
- Target function, file, and line range
- Strategy and risk score
- Number of changes planned
- Test command
- Acceptance criteria
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 244 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 3df7e43532c7
openlore-execute-refactor is a skill published in the GitHub repository clay-good/OpenLore (351 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 2,338 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 skills, from other repositories
architecture-review
Analyze Python module architecture using pyscn - class coupling (CBO), cohesion (LCOM), dependency cycles, and module communities. Use when user asks about architecture, module structure, coupling, circular dependencies, or which files to review or change together.
refactoring
Find refactoring targets in Python code using pyscn - duplicate code (clones), overly complex functions, and dead code. Use when user asks about refactoring, code duplication, complexity hotspots, unreachable code, or cleaning up a codebase.
ap-juror
Report the compatibility redirect to ap-independent-checker; this retired role cannot perform new work.
ap-reviewer
Report the compatibility redirect to ap-independent-checker; this retired role cannot perform new work.
ap-sweeper
Report the compatibility redirect to ap-independent-checker; this retired role cannot perform new work.
nw-fp-usable-design
Naming conventions, API ergonomics, and usability patterns for functional code.