Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to jd-solanki/airig. 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/jd-solanki/airig/main/.ai/skills/clean-code/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jd-solanki/airigWrote 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/jd-solanki/airig/clean-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jd-solanki/airig/clean-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jd-solanki/airig/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/jd-solanki/airig/clean-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jd-solanki/airig/clean-code.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 | $0.00120 | $0.03360 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00048 | $0.01344 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00672 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00336 |
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 1mo 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
88% identical to clean-code — 29 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 — 232 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Clean Code Framework
A disciplined approach to writing code that communicates intent, minimizes surprises, and welcomes change. Apply these principles when writing new code, reviewing pull requests, refactoring legacy systems, or advising on code quality.
Core Principle
Code is read far more often than it is written — optimize for the reader. The read-to-write ratio is well over 10:1, so every naming choice, function boundary, and formatting decision either adds clarity or adds cost. Clean code reads like well-written prose: names reveal intent, functions tell a story one step at a time, and the Boy Scout Rule applies — always leave the code cleaner than you found it.
Scoring
Goal: 10/10. Rate any code 0-10 against the principles below. Report the current score and the specific improvements needed to reach 10/10.
- 9-10: Names reveal intent, functions are small and focused, error handling is consistent, tests are clean and comprehensive
- 7-8: Mostly clean with minor naming ambiguities or a few long functions; tests may lack edge cases
- 5-6: Mixed — good patterns alongside unclear names, duplicated logic, or inconsistent error handling
- 3-4: Long multi-purpose functions, misleading names, poor or missing tests
- 1-2: Nearly unreadable — magic numbers, cryptic abbreviations, no structure, no tests
The Clean Code Framework
Six disciplines for writing code that communicates clearly and adapts to change:
1. Meaningful Names
Core concept: Names should reveal intent, avoid disinformation, and make the code read like prose. If a name requires a comment to explain it, the name is wrong.
Why it works: Names are the most pervasive form of documentation — a well-chosen name eliminates the need to read the implementation; a poor one forces every reader to reverse-engineer intent.
Key insights:
- A name should answer why it exists, what it does, and how it is used
- No encodings, prefixes, or type information (no Hungarian notation); single letters only for tiny-scope loop counters
- Classes are nouns; methods are verbs
- One word per concept: don't mix
fetch,retrieve, andget - Longer scope demands a longer, more descriptive name
- Rename freely — IDEs make it trivial
What ships with it
6 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 232 lines · 120 tokens per session scan A 2b45226a0b31
clean-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository jd-solanki/airig (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 120 tokens to every session and 3,360 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to clean-code, differing in 29 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…