Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to DGouron/review-flow. 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/DGouron/review-flow/master/.claude/skills/clean-code/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DGouron/review-flowWrote 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/dgouron/review-flow/clean-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dgouron/review-flow/clean-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dgouron/review-flow/clean-code/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/dgouron/review-flow/clean-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dgouron/review-flow/clean-code.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00084 | $0.03097 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.01239 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00619 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00310 |
Grade A, and why
clean-code 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 2mo 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 — 210 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Clean Code — Refactor & Challenge
Source: Clean Code (Robert C. Martin, 2008) + Clean Coder (2011).
When to activate
- REFACTOR phase of the TDD cycle (after GREEN, before the next RED)
- Implementation self-review (end of
feature-implementerworkflow) - Code review of a PR/MR
- Explicit request for simplification, readability, "challenge this code"
Scope vs neighboring skills
This skill NEVER duplicates the content of /solid or /anti-overengineering. It complements them.
| Concern | Skill to use |
|---|---|
| Responsibility architecture (SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP) | /solid |
| Should I add a pattern? (YAGNI, KISS, pragmatic architecture) | /anti-overengineering |
| Readability, naming, functions, smells, refactor heuristics | /clean-code (here) |
Once the pattern is decided (/anti-overengineering) and responsibilities are placed (/solid), /clean-code makes intent self-evident.
The 5 pillars
1. SOLID Design — delegated to /solid
Activate /solid for SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP. Mentioned here only as a structuring reminder: clean code rests on well-placed responsibilities.
2. Readability first
"The ratio of time spent reading to writing code is well over 10:1. We are constantly reading old code as part of the effort to write new code." — Robert C. Martin
Naming (chap. 2)
- Intention-revealing: the name should be enough to understand. If you write a comment to explain, the name is broken.
- OK
daysSinceLastReview— KOd,days,elapsed - OK
filterMergedPullRequests(prs)— KOprocessPrs(prs, true)
- OK
- No disinformation:
accountListmust be aList, otherwiseaccounts. - Perceptible distinction:
getActiveAccount()vsgetActiveAccounts()is a time bomb. PrefergetCurrentAccount()vsgetAllActiveAccounts(). - Searchable: short names only for short scopes (loop index =
indexin a 3-line loop — notieven though short). - No encoding: no Hungarian notation (
strName,bIsActive), noIprefix for interfaces. - Class names = nouns (
ReviewContext,ThreadFetchGateway), method names = verbs (save,fetchByCriteria). - Full words only (project rule,
coding-standards.md): noex,i,ctx,gw. Alwaysexisting,index,context,gateway.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 210 lines · 84 tokens per session scan A 55b1b878cb47
clean-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository DGouron/review-flow (44 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 84 tokens to every session and 3,097 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
brooks-health
Combined codebase health dashboard that scores a project across all four quality dimensions — PR quality, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — in a single pass, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user wants an overall quality assessment, asks "how healthy is this codebase?", "run all…
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
quality-gates-evidence-contract
Use when producing or verifying the structured evidence log that attests quality gates (tests, build, mutation, commits, RED/GREEN integrity). Tech-agnostic schema. Loaded by software-engineer (writer) at COMMIT phase and by quality-gates-lens (reader) during review.
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…