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 FradSer/dotclaude --skill refactorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/FradSer/dotclaudeWrote 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/fradser/dotclaude/refactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fradser/dotclaude/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fradser/dotclaude/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/fradser/dotclaude/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fradser/dotclaude/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 | $0.00055 | $0.00633 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00253 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
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 22d 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 — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactor Command
Execute automated refactoring for $ARGUMENTS using refactor:code-simplifier agent.
Pre-operation Checks
Goal: Ensure scope resolution is deterministic before launching the agent.
Actions:
- Run
git rev-parse --is-inside-work-treeand continue even if false when explicit paths are provided - Normalize arguments by trimming whitespace and preserving quoted path segments
- Treat an empty argument list as "recent changes" mode
Phase 1: Determine Target Scope
Goal: Identify files to refactor based on arguments or session context.
Actions:
- If arguments provided: verify as file/directory paths using Glob
- If paths exist: use them directly as refactoring scope
- If paths don't exist: treat arguments as semantic query, search codebase with Grep
- If no arguments: run
git diff --name-onlyto find recently modified code files - If no recent changes found: inform user and exit without refactoring
CRITICAL: Never include node_modules/, .git/, dist/, build/, lock files, or compiled artifacts in refactoring scope — use Grep --glob exclusions to enforce.
See references/scope-determination.md for search strategies and edge cases.
Phase 2: Launch Refactoring Agent
Goal: Execute refactor:code-simplifier agent with aggressive mode enabled.
Actions:
- Launch
refactor:code-simplifieragent with target scope and aggressive mode flag - Pass scope determination method (paths, semantic query, or session context)
- Agent auto-loads
refactor:best-practicesskill and applies language-specific patterns
See references/agent-configuration.md for detailed Task parameters.
Phase 3: Summary
Goal: Report comprehensive summary of changes.
Actions:
- Report total files refactored and changes categorized by improvement type
- List best practices applied and legacy code removed
- Suggest tests to run and provide rollback command tailored to actual scope (for example:
git restore --worktree --staged <files>)
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.
- 22d ago First seen · 61 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 635e867f1f26
refactor is a skill published in the GitHub repository FradSer/dotclaude (593 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 633 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 2026-09-24.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
pr
Draft a PR body from OMC's paper trail — the smallest visual that proves the change, evidence consumed from the verify protocol (never re-collected), reversibility from the ADR test on the diff, glossary language throughout.
otto-pr-review-loop
Run Polly and OCR on a PR until all findings settle.
engram-branch-pr
PR creation workflow for Engram following the issue-first enforcement system. Trigger: When creating a pull request, opening a PR, or preparing changes for review.
verify-behavior
Verify or reproduce visible product behavior by driving the real UI with pi-computer-use's checked tools, requiring verified expect postconditions and durable state evidence for meaningful UI flows. Use when triage needs visual reproduction, implementation needs behavioral proof, review needs interactive confirmation…
github-contributor
A step-by-step guide for contributing code, tests, documentation, or build changes to open-source projects you do not maintain. It explains how to prepare a pull request that follows the project’s rules and is easier for maintainers to review.