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 rileyhilliard/agentrc --skill refactoring-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rileyhilliard/agentrcWrote 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/rileyhilliard/agentrc/refactoring-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rileyhilliard/agentrc/refactoring-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rileyhilliard/agentrc/refactoring-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/rileyhilliard/agentrc/refactoring-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rileyhilliard/agentrc/refactoring-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 | $0.00032 | $0.00733 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00293 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00147 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
refactoring-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactoring Code
Core principle: Refactoring changes structure, not functionality. If behavior changes, you're rewriting.
The Five Phases
Refactoring Progress:
- [ ] Phase 1: Understand current behavior
- [ ] Phase 2: Verify behavior-driven tests exist
- [ ] Phase 3: Identify issues
- [ ] Phase 4: Plan incremental steps
- [ ] Phase 5: Execute with continuous verification
Phase 1: Understand Current Behavior
- Read code to understand purpose, not just implementation
- Use Grep to find all call sites and consumers
- Document inputs, outputs, side effects, edge cases
Phase 2: Verify Test Coverage (CRITICAL)
Tests must verify BEHAVIOR, not implementation:
// ✅ Behavior-driven - survives refactoring
test('displays error when API returns 404', async () => {
server.use(http.get('/api/users', () => new HttpResponse(null, { status: 404 })));
render(<UserList />);
expect(await screen.findByText(/not found/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
});
// ❌ Implementation-detail - breaks during refactoring
test('sets error state', () => {
wrapper.instance().handleError(new Error('404'));
expect(wrapper.state('error')).toBe('404');
});
If tests are missing: Add behavior-driven tests first using Skill(ce:writing-tests).
Phase 3: Identify Issues
| Issue | Indicators | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Complexity | Deep nesting, >50 line functions | Extract smaller functions |
| Duplication | Copy-pasted code | Extract shared utility |
| Poor naming | x, data, temp |
Rename to intent |
| Type gaps | any types, assertions |
Add proper types |
Phase 4: Plan Refactoring
- Break into small, independently testable steps
- High impact + low risk first (e.g., renames)
- Defer high-risk changes (algorithm rewrites)
Phase 5: Execute & Verify
- Make one change at a time
- Run tests after each change
- Check TypeScript compilation
- Verify behavior unchanged
If something breaks: STOP. Use Skill(ce:systematic-debugging). Don't proceed until understood.
What ships with it
1 file 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 · 101 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 9f3f87adb97a
refactoring-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository rileyhilliard/agentrc (3 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 733 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 2026-08-31.
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"…
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…
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…
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…