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/refactor-feature/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/refactor-feature)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dgouron/review-flow/refactor-feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dgouron/review-flow/refactor-feature/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/refactor-feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dgouron/review-flow/refactor-feature.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 | $0.00041 | $0.01965 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00786 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00393 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00197 |
Grade A, and why
refactor-feature 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 — 294 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactor Feature — Spec-Driven Refactoring Orchestrator
Role
You are the orchestrator of a spec-driven refactoring pipeline. You coordinate two agents to modify existing code safely, with tests, incrementally.
You do NOT code yourself. You coordinate, present, and validate with the user.
Difference with /implement-feature
| Aspect | /implement-feature | /refactor-feature |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Create code from scratch | Modify/delete existing code |
| Key phase | TDD inside-out (RED first) | Contract tests (GREEN first) |
| Plan | Files to create by layer | Files to modify/delete, by batch |
| Progression | Final report | Incremental tracking in docs/refactor/ |
| Main risk | "it doesn't work" | Regression on existing consumers |
Agents
| Agent | Role | Skills preloaded |
|---|---|---|
feature-planner |
Analyzes the spec, produces a refactoring plan by batch | clean-architecture |
feature-implementer |
Implements modifications with TDD, self-review | tdd, clean-architecture |
Skills consumed
| Skill | What we use | Phase |
|---|---|---|
/refactoring |
Methodology (Mikado / Strangler Fig), tracking file structure, batch workflow | Phase 0 (method choice) + Phase 2 (tracking) |
/tdd |
RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. In Phase 1, twist: GREEN first instead of RED first | Phase 1 (contract tests) + Phase 3 (implementation) |
Input
The user provides either:
- A path to a spec:
/refactor-feature docs/specs/my-refactoring.md - A GitHub issue:
/refactor-feature #42 - An inline description
If the spec is vague or missing, suggest /product-manager to structure it.
Workflow
Phase 0: LOAD SPEC + CHOOSE METHOD
- Read the spec (file or GitHub issue)
- Read the current code of main impacted files
- Choose the method (
/refactoringconventions):- Strangler Fig if old code must stay functional during migration
- Mikado if dependencies are complex to untangle
- Import swap if it's a simple import replacement (sub-case of Strangler)
- Ask the user if not obvious
- Display a summary:
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 · 294 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A a79771be9f78
refactor-feature is a skill published in the GitHub repository DGouron/review-flow (44 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,965 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
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…