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 mhmdreza-rafiei/agent-tools --skill cleanupgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mhmdreza-rafiei/agent-toolsWrote 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/mhmdreza-rafiei/agent-tools/cleanup)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mhmdreza-rafiei/agent-tools/cleanup"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhmdreza-rafiei/agent-tools/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/mhmdreza-rafiei/agent-tools/cleanup"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhmdreza-rafiei/agent-tools/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 | $0.00076 | $0.00702 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00038 | $0.00351 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/cleanup
A focused tech-debt cleanup pass. /review checks new code for quality;
/cleanup hunts the old debt that's already in the tree — dead code, dup
helpers, stale deps, drift from the project's own conventions — and removes
it safely.
When to use
When the user says "clean up", "reduce tech debt", "dead code sweep"; on
/cleanup; before a release; after a big refactor.
Commands
/cleanup— scan the whole repo (or the touched area)./cleanup <area>— focus one area (e.g./cleanup src/auth)./cleanup --dry-run— list findings, remove nothing.
Step 1 — Scan for debt
Hunt, with grep/AST where useful:
- Dead code — unexported, uncalled functions/modules; unreachable branches.
- Duplicate helpers — same logic in 2+ places; pick the canonical one.
- Stale deps — declared but not imported; versions behind.
- Unused exports — exported but no external consumer.
- Convention drift — paths/naming that violate
files-folders-structure; code style that violates the project's own pattern.
Step 2 — For each finding, classify
- Safe — remove, no behavior change (dead code, unused export).
- Risky — remove after verifying no dynamic use (string-path imports, eval, reflection).
- Don't — keep, note why (compat shim, public API).
Step 3 — Ordered removal plan
Produce an ordered list: safe removals first (one commit), risky removals after verification (one commit each), and a "keep" list with reasons.
Output
## Cleanup plan
### Safe (one commit)
- remove <path> — <why safe>
### Risky (one commit each)
- remove <path> — verify: <what to check first>
### Keep
- <path> — <why kept, e.g. compat shim>
Constraints
- Never remove on assumption — grep for dynamic/string-path uses first.
- One commit per risky removal so a revert is one command.
- Follow
rule/global/migration: update references before removing old. - Follow
rule/global/git-workflow: ask before any destructive removal.
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 · 79 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 4b7c59de0edd
cleanup is a skill published in the GitHub repository mhmdreza-rafiei/agent-tools (5 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 702 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…