Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to compozy/skeeper. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/compozy/skeeper/main/.agents/skills/refactoring-analysis/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/compozy/skeeperWrote 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/compozy/skeeper/refactoring-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/compozy/skeeper/refactoring-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/compozy/skeeper/refactoring-analysis/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/compozy/skeeper/refactoring-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/compozy/skeeper/refactoring-analysis.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 | $0.00101 | $0.01705 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.00682 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00341 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
refactoring-analysis 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 — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactoring Analysis
Perform a systematic analysis of a codebase to identify refactoring opportunities based on Martin Fowler's "Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code" (2nd Edition). Produce a prioritized report with actionable findings.
Procedures
Step 1: Scope the Analysis
- Determine the analysis target — a specific directory, module, feature area, or the entire project. If the user did not specify, ask which area to focus on.
- Identify the project's language and paradigm (OOP, functional, mixed) to calibrate which smells and techniques are applicable.
- If the project follows domain-driven design (DDD) or hexagonal architecture, read
references/solid-ddd-context.mdfor additional SOLID-specific analysis criteria.
Step 2: Explore the Codebase
- Map the directory structure and identify key modules, entry points, and shared utilities.
- Read the most critical files (entry points, core business logic, shared modules).
- Identify the project's conventions: naming, file organization, test patterns, dependency injection approach.
Step 3: Detect Code Smells
Read references/code-smells-catalog.md for the full catalog of detectable smells.
Systematically scan for the following smell categories, in priority order:
- Bloaters — Long Functions (>15 lines of logic), Large Classes/Modules (>300 lines), Long Parameter Lists (>3 params), Data Clumps, Primitive Obsession.
- Change Preventers — Divergent Change (one module changed for multiple unrelated reasons), Shotgun Surgery (one change touches 5+ files).
- Dispensables — Duplicated Code, Dead Code, Speculative Generality, Lazy Elements, Comments as Deodorant.
- Couplers — Feature Envy, Insider Trading (excessive data sharing between modules), Message Chains (>2 levels deep), Middle Man (>50% delegation).
- Conditional Complexity — Nested Conditionals (>2 levels), Repeated Switches, Missing Guard Clauses, Complex Boolean Expressions.
- DRY Violations — Near-identical code blocks, copy-pasted logic with minor variations, repeated parameter groups, duplicated constants or magic numbers.
What ships with it
6 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 158 lines · 101 tokens per session scan A 1b244f4e1a8a
refactoring-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository compozy/skeeper (89 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 101 tokens to every session and 1,705 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…