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/cc10x --skill codebase-hygienegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/romiluz13/cc10xWrote 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/cc10x/codebase-hygiene)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/romiluz13/cc10x/codebase-hygiene"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/romiluz13/cc10x/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/cc10x/codebase-hygiene"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/romiluz13/cc10x/codebase-hygiene.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00067 | $0.01330 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00532 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00266 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00133 |
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 — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codebase Hygiene (Duplicate Detection + Module Deepening)
Advisory and read-heavy. Diagnoses and proposes; does not refactor. Any actual change goes through BUILD with full gates.
Mode: DUPLICATE DETECTION
Semantic duplicates: functions serving the same purpose but implemented independently under different names. Copy-paste detectors catch syntactic duplicates; this finds "same intent, different implementation."
Method
- Scope before you scan — take the user's named target; else
git log --onelinefor hot spots and weight recently-changed code — deepening pays off in proportion to future change. - 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 comparison space.
- Drop categories with <3 functions — can't hide a meaningful duplication pattern.
- Detect duplicates per category (capable tier) — read implementations, decide which share intent. Never use cheap tier for 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 code-reviewer 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 · 99 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A ad3bb93ba656
codebase-hygiene is a skill published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/cc10x (164 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 1,330 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
issue-analyze
GitHub Issue and PR review thread deep analysis with Codex blind verdict. Use when: analyzing issue root cause, classifying problems, investigation planning, triaging PR review comments for actionability. Not for: fixing bugs (use bug-fix), code exploration (use code-explore). Output: classified analysis + verdict…
load-pr-review
Load GitHub PR review comments into AI session — analyze, triage, plan. Default: analysis-only (no auto-fix). Use when: reviewing PR feedback, planning fixes, addressing review comments, replying to reviewers. Not for: creating reviews (use codex-review-fast), creating PRs (use create-pr), viewing PR status (use…
best-practices
Industry best practices conformance audit with mandatory adversarial debate. Produces audit artifact: verdict (OK/WARN/FAIL) + gap roadmap + debate proof. Use when: auditing current implementation against industry standards, checking compliance with best practices, benchmarking implementation quality, verifying a…
code-explore
Pure Claude code investigation. Use when: tracing execution paths, understanding architecture, diagnosing issues. Not for: dual-perspective review (use code-investigate), code review (use codex-code-review). Output: analysis report with findings.
debug
Interactive debugging workflow with hypothesis-driven probe loop. Use when: unknown bugs, script errors, silent failures, troubleshooting. Not for: known bugs (use bug-fix), GitHub issue analysis (use issue-analyze), code understanding (use code-explore). Output: debug report with probe journal + root cause + fix.
pre-pr-audit
Pre-PR confidence audit with 5-dimension scoring. Use when: final check before commit/push/PR, evaluating PR readiness, assessing test quality + risk + coverage holistically. Triggers: pre-pr, readiness check, confidence audit, final verification, ready to PR, how confident. Not for: code review (use…