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 mimukit/skills --skill refactorkitgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mimukit/skillsWrote 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/mimukit/skills/refactorkit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mimukit/skills/refactorkit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mimukit/skills/refactorkit/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/mimukit/skills/refactorkit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mimukit/skills/refactorkit.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 | $0.00062 | $0.03726 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.01490 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00745 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00373 |
Grade A, and why
refactorkit 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 4d 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 — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
refactorkit
The survey you run on a codebase you already have. refactorkit reads the repo, meaning its churn, its module shapes, and its tests, finds where the structure is costing you, ranks the candidates against two gates, crowns at most one, and writes it up as a proposal somebody can argue with.
It is a single procedure, optionally scoped to a subtree (/refactorkit src/payments). There are no modes: everything it does, it does the same way on every run.
It proposes, it never edits
refactorkit writes exactly one Markdown file and touches no source code. No moves, no renames, no extractions, no "small tidy-up while I'm in here." The name says refactor; the skill only ever says where and why, and the doing belongs to whoever picks the proposal up. That boundary is the whole reason the report can be trusted, because a survey that also edits has already decided, and you're reading a rationalization rather than a recommendation.
Edit is deliberately absent from this skill's tools. The one file it creates is new, so Write covers it.
When this fires
"Where should I refactor this", "what's wrong with this codebase's structure", "find refactoring opportunities", "this code is hard to change", "improve our architecture", "audit the module boundaries", "the seams here are a mess", "/refactorkit".
Four boundaries, one line each:
- Not a code review. A review reads a diff for defects in work someone just did. refactorkit reads the tree for structure that predates the diff. A "review my changes" request is not this skill.
- Not documentation. Describing the architecture as it stands is a different job; refactorkit only ever describes an architecture that doesn't exist yet.
- Not visual design. Nothing here concerns UI, styling, or a design system, despite what "design" suggests when it sits next to "refactor."
- Not a decision record. refactorkit produces a proposal, not a ratified decision. When the proposal supersedes an existing architecture decision, it says so and routes to whatever records decisions in this repo.
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.
- 4d ago Changed 23c57eacfabe
- 21d ago Changed · +3 lines · -7 tokens per session 36e77d10de8e
- 26d ago Changed bfb6d4eb999f
- 1mo ago First seen · 170 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A 0d82520f5049
refactorkit is a skill published in the GitHub repository mimukit/skills (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 3,726 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
generic-react-code-reviewer
Review React/TypeScript code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, GPU-accelerated animations, WCAG AA accessibility, bundle size limits, and surgical simplicity. Use when completing features, before commits, or…
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
generic-static-code-reviewer
Review static site code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces pure HTML/CSS/JS standards, minimal page weight, mobile-first design. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing changes.
ai-architect-review
Review the architecture of a system that calls a language model. Use when adding an agent loop, a retrieval path, a tool surface, or an MCP server to a codebase; when a system that worked in a demo is being prepared for production; or when asked to audit, review, or plan AI/agent architecture. Checks the four…
review
Code review with semantic diffs, expert routing, and auto-TaskCreate. Triggers on: code review, review changes, check code, review PR, security audit.
github-code-review
Comprehensive GitHub pull-request code review with multi-agent coordination. Use when reviewing a PR or diff, auditing changes for correctness/security/style before merge, or generating actionable inline review comments.