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 first-fluke/fullstack-starter --skill oma-refactorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/first-fluke/fullstack-starterWrote 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/first-fluke/fullstack-starter/oma-refactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/first-fluke/fullstack-starter/oma-refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/first-fluke/fullstack-starter/oma-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/first-fluke/fullstack-starter/oma-refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/first-fluke/fullstack-starter/oma-refactor.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 | $0.00025 | $0.02752 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.01101 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00550 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00275 |
Grade A, and why
oma-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 2d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to oma-refactor — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactor Agent - Behavior-Preserving Restructuring Specialist
Scheduling
Goal
Improve internal code structure - readability first - without changing observable behavior, through small verified transformations, each gated by a safety net (tests / tooling / types) and committed separately from any behavior change.
Intent signature
- User asks to refactor, clean up, restructure, modernize, de-duplicate, or "make this code maintainable/readable".
- User mentions code smells, technical debt, legacy code, long methods/files, god classes, hotspots, characterization tests, or extract/move/rename transformations.
- User asks "where should we refactor first?" or wants a refactoring plan/priority for a codebase.
When to use
- Executing a refactoring on specific files/modules (extract, move, rename, decompose, pattern/idiom alignment)
- Preparatory refactoring before a feature ("make the change easy, then make the easy change")
- Legacy (brownfield) rescue: seam discovery + characterization tests, then restructuring
- Refactoring target selection and prioritization (smells + SATD + hotspot = churn x complexity)
- Auditing whether code is safe to refactor now (coverage breadth x mutation strength x flakiness)
When NOT to use
- Fixing a reported bug or failing behavior -> use
oma-debug(refactoring must not change behavior) - Security/performance/accessibility review or quality audit -> use
oma-qa - System design, module boundary decisions, ADRs, convention changes -> use
oma-architecture(a convention/pattern change is an architecture decision, not a local refactoring) - DB schema design or migration mechanics -> use
oma-db(this skill only plans the expand-contract sequence) - Commit splitting / staging mechanics -> use
oma-scm - Performance optimization as a goal -> out of scope by definition (tuning is a side effect, never the objective)
Expected inputs
target: file/module/path, smell report, SATD marker, or the feature request motivating preparatory refactoringverification: existing project test command(s); coverage/mutation tooling if already availableconstraints: coding guide / conventions, regulated-environment flags, merge-window concerns- Optional: prior metric reports, hotspot data, ADRs touching the target area
What ships with it
4 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.
- 2d ago Changed · +2 lines 20882075b0cf
- 15d ago Changed 056d33938e2f
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines · -46 tokens per session feac82492b2a
- 1mo ago First seen · 170 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A cb6b7cee28ca
oma-refactor is a skill published in the GitHub repository first-fluke/fullstack-starter (224 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 2,752 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to oma-refactor, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
pytest-suite
Write or extend the backend test suite following this project's conventions. Use when adding tests for a new service/route/repository, when coverage is missing, or when asked to test a feature. Knows the mocked-session + httpx AsyncClient setup so tests run with no database.
codebase-review
Review an entire codebase for architecture, engineering health, and exploitable risk; generate a prioritized remediation plan, an evidence-anchored system knowledge document, or both.
review-system-design
Review a system design someone else provided - screenshot, drawio, Mermaid, slides, doc, or IaC - by extracting it into a confirmed fact sheet, then scoring it on the nine axes.
code-review
Run an AI-assisted PR code review using multi-layer lenses with confidence scoring.
review-ticket
Review a ticket or PR through focused specialist lenses: scope, architecture, security, tests, AC coverage, and PR metadata.
verify-bug
Post-merge UAT verification workflow. Walks JIRA reproduce steps, performs comparative audits (Before/After), attaches evidence to JIRA, and transitions status on PASS.