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 DavidVujic/my-eca-config --skill guiding-refactoring-with-code-healthgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DavidVujic/my-eca-configWrote 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/davidvujic/my-eca-config/guiding-refactoring-with-code-health)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/davidvujic/my-eca-config/guiding-refactoring-with-code-health"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/davidvujic/my-eca-config/guiding-refactoring-with-code-health/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/davidvujic/my-eca-config/guiding-refactoring-with-code-health"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/davidvujic/my-eca-config/guiding-refactoring-with-code-health.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 | $0.00028 | $0.00460 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00230 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
guiding-refactoring-with-code-health 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 11d 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 — 43 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Guiding Refactoring With Code Health
Overview
Use Code Health as the control signal for refactoring. The agent should first understand why a file is hard to work with, establish a measurable baseline, then improve it in small structural steps and verify that each step helped. The goal is not just cleaner code, but code that is easier for both humans and agents to understand and modify safely.
When to Use
- A file is hard to read, risky to change, or repeatedly attracts defects.
- The user asks for refactoring help and wants an objective way to measure progress.
- A safeguard or review points to complexity, size, low cohesion, or deep nesting.
Do not use this skill when the task is to rank project-wide priorities. Use prioritizing-technical-debt for that.
Quick Reference
code_health_review: Detailed maintainability findings for a file.code_health_score: Numeric baseline and trend check across refactoring iterations.
Implementation
- Run
code_health_reviewon the target file. - Record the current
code_health_scoreso the refactoring starts from a measurable baseline. - Identify the highest-leverage structural problems, such as excessive responsibilities, deep nesting, low cohesion, or hard-to-follow control flow.
- Propose 3 to 5 small structural refactor steps, not a single rewrite.
- After each meaningful step, re-run
code_health_reviewto see whether the targeted structural problems were reduced. - Use
code_health_scoreas the compact checkpoint to confirm directional improvement across iterations. - Stop only when the targeted structural issues are substantially reduced and the score has measurably improved, or when the user explicitly accepts a partial uplift.
Common Mistakes
- Refactoring without a baseline review.
- Refactoring without recording the initial score.
- Making a large rewrite that hides whether things improved.
- Counting cosmetic cleanup as meaningful progress when the structural problems remain.
- Using score checks alone without re-running the detailed review.
- Forgetting to re-measure after each meaningful step.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 43 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 876a74e27ebf
guiding-refactoring-with-code-health is a skill published in the GitHub repository DavidVujic/my-eca-config (11 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 460 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
gsd-ns-review
Route to the appropriate quality / review skill based on the user's intent. gsd-code-review-fix was absorbed by gsd-code-review --fix in #2790.
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…
gitnexus
A code-graph analysis add-on for examining an existing codebase, including symbols, call paths, execution flows, and effects across repositories. It can query GitNexus through its command-line or MCP interfaces.
cleanup-code-inspections
Reduce technical debt and improve code quality by systematically resolving static analysis warnings.
sonarqube-mcp
Provides SonarQube and SonarCloud integration patterns via the Model Context Protocol (MCP) server. Enables quality gate monitoring, issue discovery and triaging, pre-push code analysis, and rule education directly in the agent workflow. Use when the user wants to check quality gates, search for Sonar issues, analyze…