oh-my-agent is a harness for checking whether coding agents actually completed their work by verifying tests, required artifacts, independent reviews, and recorded decisions. It is used across multiple agent runtimes to make workflow results auditable instead of relying on an agent's own report. The catalogue add-ons provide parts of its skills, agents, hooks, MCP integrations, instructions, and plugins.
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/oh-my-agent --skill oma-refactorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/first-fluke/oh-my-agentWrote 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/oh-my-agent/oma-refactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/oma-refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/oma-refactor.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 3 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 102 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 122 uvx/uv tool run commands without ==version create a rug-pull risk.Fix: Pin the version: uvx package-name==1.2.3
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 122 uvx/uv tool run commands without ==version create a rug-pull risk.Fix: Pin the version: uvx package-name==1.2.3
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 | $0.00071 | $0.02758 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.01379 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00552 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00276 |
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 8d 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.
Copies of this mod
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- oma-refactor — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- oma-refactor — 92% identical, 8 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 170 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: project test command(s) per the tool registry; coverage/mutation tooling if 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
3 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 170 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A cb6b7cee28ca
oma-refactor is a skill published in the GitHub repository first-fluke/oh-my-agent (1,275 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 2,758 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
improve-codebase-architecture
Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the domain language in CONTEXT.md and the decisions in docs/adr/. Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more testable and AI-navigable.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
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…
link-check
Verify @file references in AIWG skills and agents against the linking contract — per-file or corpus-wide, with optional auto-fix.
pr-comment
Post friendly review comments to a GitHub PR — prepare locally, preview, then submit as atomic review. Use when: posting code review comments, giving PR feedback, sending inline suggestions. Not for: reading existing reviews (use load-pr-review), creating PRs (use create-pr), PR status (use pr-summary).
risk-assess
Uncommitted code risk assessment with breaking change detection, blast radius analysis, and scope metrics. Use when: evaluating PR risk, pre-commit risk check, large refactoring review. Not for: security vulnerabilities (use /codex-security), code correctness (use /codex-review-fast). Output: 3-dimension weighted…