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 softspark/ai-toolkit --skill refactorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/softspark/ai-toolkitWrote 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/softspark/ai-toolkit/refactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/softspark/ai-toolkit/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/softspark/ai-toolkit/refactor/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/softspark/ai-toolkit/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/softspark/ai-toolkit/refactor.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 | $0.00029 | $0.01439 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00576 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00288 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00144 |
Grade A, and why
refactor 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 — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactor Code
$ARGUMENTS
Plan and execute code refactoring.
Usage
/refactor [target] [--pattern=<pattern>]
What This Command Does
- Analyzes target code
- Identifies refactoring opportunities
- Plans refactoring steps
- Executes with user approval
Refactoring Patterns
| Pattern | Description |
|---|---|
extract-function |
Extract code block to function |
extract-component |
Extract UI component |
rename |
Rename symbol across codebase |
move |
Move code to better location |
inline |
Inline unnecessary abstraction |
simplify |
Simplify complex logic |
Safety Rules
- Run tests before refactoring
- Make atomic commits
- Preserve behavior (no feature changes)
- Run tests after each step
- Don't mix refactoring with features
Output Format
## Refactoring Plan: [Target]
### Current State
- **Location**: [file:line]
- **Issues**: [what's wrong]
### Proposed Changes
1. [Change 1]
2. [Change 2]
### Impact Analysis
- **Files affected**: [count]
- **Risk level**: [Low/Medium/High]
### Test Coverage
- [x] Unit tests exist
- [ ] Integration tests needed
### Rollback
git revert [commit]
Approval Required
Before executing:
- Plan reviewed
- Tests passing
- Backup created
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Why It's Wrong |
|---|---|
| "It works, don't touch it" | Working code that's hard to maintain slows every future change |
| "We'll refactor it later" | Later never comes — refactor when the pain is fresh and context is loaded |
| "It's too risky to change" | That's exactly why it needs refactoring — risk compounds with complexity |
| "Just one more hack won't hurt" | Each hack makes the next one easier to justify — break the cycle now |
| "We need to rewrite from scratch" | Incremental refactoring is safer and delivers value continuously |
READ BEFORE WRITE
This command analyzes and plans first. Execution requires explicit approval.
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 · 167 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 5f8da925ca65
refactor is a skill published in the GitHub repository softspark/ai-toolkit (180 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,439 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
phpunit-test-team-reviewing
Use this skill when the user asks for a team-based, consensus, multi-reviewer, or red-team review of Shopware PHPUnit tests — trigger phrases like "team review these tests", "consensus review the tests in PR.
phpunit-test-reconciling
Internal sub-skill. Do not auto-activate. Use only when explicitly invoked by name by another skill or agent.
unit-test
A Go testing workflow for writing unit tests: small tests that check individual functions or components. It supports table-driven cases, where many inputs and expected results are organised in one test, and subtests.
fuzzing-test
A Go testing guide for generating fuzz tests, which repeatedly try varied inputs to find crashes and unexpected behavior. It first checks whether the code is suitable for fuzzing.
data-validation-helper
Validation et qualité des données dans les pipelines. Se déclenche avec "data quality", "validation des données", "data contract", "schema validation", "Great Expectations", "données incorrectes", "data testing". Also triggers on "validate input data", "reject bad records".
refactoring-recipes
Refactor safely by name: a catalogue of the refactorings that come up in practice (extract function or module, inline, rename, replace conditional with polymorphism or lookup, introduce parameter object, replace flag argument, split phase, move function, encapsulate collection, strangler for large rewrites), each with…