Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to jstxn/rein. 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/jstxn/rein/main/.codex/skills/rein-cleanup/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jstxn/reinWrote 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/jstxn/rein/rein-cleanup)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jstxn/rein/rein-cleanup"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jstxn/rein/rein-cleanup/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/jstxn/rein/rein-cleanup"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jstxn/rein/rein-cleanup.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00860 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00344 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
rein-cleanup 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
rein-cleanup
Reduce bloated, noisy, repetitive, or over-abstracted code with a regression-tests-first, smell-by-smell cleanup workflow that preserves behavior and raises signal quality.
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- A code path works but feels bloated, noisy, repetitive, or over-abstracted
- A user asks to "cleanup", "refactor", or "deslop" output
- Follow-up implementation left duplicate code, dead code, weak boundaries, missing tests, or unnecessary wrapper layers
- You need a disciplined cleanup workflow without broad rewrites
Scoped File Lists
- This skill can accept a file list scope instead of a whole feature area.
- When the caller provides a changed-files list, keep the cleanup strictly bounded to those files.
Procedure
-
Lock behavior with regression tests first
- Identify the behavior that must not change
- Add or run targeted regression tests before editing cleanup candidates
- If behavior is currently untested, create the narrowest test coverage needed first
-
Create a cleanup plan before code
- List the specific smells to remove
- Bound the pass to the requested files or scope
- If a file list scope is provided, keep the pass restricted to that changed-files list
- Order fixes from safest and highest-signal to riskiest
- Prefer deletion or local simplification before helper extraction
- Do not start coding until the cleanup plan is explicit
-
Categorize issues before editing
- Duplication: repeated logic, copy-paste branches, redundant helpers
- Dead code: unused code, unreachable branches, stale flags, debug leftovers
- Needless abstraction: pass-through wrappers, speculative indirection, single-use helper layers
- Boundary violations: hidden coupling, leaky responsibilities, wrong-layer imports or side effects
- Missing tests: behavior not locked, weak regression coverage, gaps around edge cases
-
Execute passes one smell at a time
- Pass 1: dead code deletion
- Pass 2: duplicate removal
- Before adding a helper or abstraction, confirm that deletion or local simplification is not enough
- Pass 3: naming and error handling cleanup
- Pass 4: test reinforcement
- Re-run targeted verification after each pass
- Avoid bundling unrelated refactors into the same edit set
- Do not use cleanup as permission for unrelated refactors or architectural rewrites
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 · 97 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 50d6f93023bf
rein-cleanup is a skill published in the GitHub repository jstxn/rein (12 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 860 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
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…