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 romiluz13/auto-pi --skill codebase-hygienegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/romiluz13/auto-piWrote 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/romiluz13/auto-pi/codebase-hygiene)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/romiluz13/auto-pi/codebase-hygiene"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/romiluz13/auto-pi/codebase-hygiene/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/romiluz13/auto-pi/codebase-hygiene"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/romiluz13/auto-pi/codebase-hygiene.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 | $0.00056 | $0.00726 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00290 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
codebase-hygiene 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 — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codebase Hygiene
Advisory and read-only. Diagnoses and proposes; does not refactor. Any actual change: tell the user to run /build.
Mode 1: Semantic duplicate detection
Copy-paste detectors catch syntactic duplicates. This finds semantic duplicates — functions serving the same purpose but implemented independently under different names.
Method
- Extract catalog — grep/glob for exported functions. Record
name | file:line | signature. - Categorize by domain (cheap tier) — validation, formatting, path manipulation, HTTP shaping, date handling. Mechanical bucketing to shrink the comparison space.
- Drop categories with <3 functions — can't hide a meaningful duplication pattern.
- Detect duplicates per category (capable tier) — READ the implementations, decide which share intent. Never use cheap name-based detection — it anchors on names and rubber-stamps "these look different."
- Emit findings — group by confidence, highest first. Each finding: what is duplicated, why it matters, the fix,
file:lineevidence. Route through the review finding contract.
High-risk zones
| Zone | Why it duplicates |
|---|---|
utils/, helpers/, lib/ |
Catch-all dumping grounds |
| Validation code | "Is this a valid email/id/url" rewritten per feature |
| Error formatting | Every module invents its own Error → string |
| Path manipulation | Join/normalize/relativize reimplemented |
| String formatting | Truncate, slugify, titlecase, pad re-rolled |
| Date formatting | Parse/format/diff scattered |
| API response shaping | Envelope/pagination/error-body copied per endpoint |
Consolidation discipline
Never delete a duplicate until ALL THREE hold:
- Survivor has tests — pick the implementation with real coverage. If neither has tests, write the test against the chosen survivor first.
- All callers updated — grep to enumerate callers. Missing one is a silent break.
- Re-run after consolidation — test suite + build/typecheck pass. Green tests on the survivor license the deletion.
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 · 61 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A b877ac0c589c
codebase-hygiene is a skill published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/auto-pi (10 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use…
improve-codebase-architecture
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
fabric-spec
Starts a persistent Pi Fabric spec supervisor that audits the main session against a feature design spec and steers only when a requirement lacks verified evidence. Use for strict, unblocked spec compliance while the main agent keeps full freedom to orchestrate.
fabric-advisor
Starts a persistent Pi Fabric peer advisor that reviews the main agent at decision points and surfaces only concrete, material advice. Use for ambient correctness review without another extension.
review-harness
Use when reviewing implementation work that ran through a /tmp Pi task harness. Checks contract drift, unsafe shortcuts, validation evidence, and status honesty.
ce:review-beta
Reviews code changes using dynamically selected reviewer personas. Spawns parallel sub-agents that return structured JSON, then merges and deduplicates findings into a single report.