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 refactor-plangit 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-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/softspark/ai-toolkit/refactor-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/softspark/ai-toolkit/refactor-plan/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-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/softspark/ai-toolkit/refactor-plan.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 | $0.00039 | $0.01047 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00524 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00209 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
refactor-plan 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 8d 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 — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactor Plan
$ARGUMENTS
Create a detailed refactor plan with tiny commits via user interview, filed as a GitHub issue.
Usage
/refactor-plan [area or module to refactor]
What This Command Does
- Gathers detailed problem description from user
- Explores the codebase to verify assertions
- Presents alternative approaches (>=3 options)
- Interviews about implementation details
- Checks test coverage of affected area
- Breaks into tiny commits (Martin Fowler: each step keeps codebase working)
- Files as GitHub issue via
gh issue create
Process
1. Gather Problem
Ask for detailed description of:
- The problem they want to solve
- Potential ideas for solutions
2. Explore Codebase
Use Agent (subagent_type=Explore) to verify assertions and understand current state.
3. Present Alternatives
Present >=3 alternative approaches. Discuss trade-offs.
4. Interview
Detailed interview about chosen approach. Hammer out exact scope — what changes, what doesn't.
5. Check Test Coverage
Explore existing test coverage for the affected area. If insufficient, ask about testing plans.
6. Break into Tiny Commits
Each commit:
- Leaves the codebase in a working state
- Is the smallest possible step
- Can be reviewed independently
7. File GitHub Issue
Use gh issue create with template below. Share URL immediately.
Issue Template
Problem Statement
The problem from the developer's perspective.
Solution
The solution from the developer's perspective.
Commits
Detailed plan in plain English, broken into the tiniest commits possible. Each commit leaves the codebase working.
Decision Document
Implementation decisions made:
- Modules to build/modify
- Interface changes
- Architectural decisions
- Schema changes
- API contracts
Do NOT include file paths or code snippets — they go stale.
Testing Decisions
- What makes a good test (external behavior, not implementation details)
- Which modules to test
- Prior art for tests in the codebase
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 131 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 11d8dcd25888
refactor-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository softspark/ai-toolkit (174 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,047 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
go-code-reviewer
Review Go code with a defect-first approach using repository policy (constitution.md first, then AGENTS.md fallback). Use for code review, PR review, quality checks, risk analysis, and regression detection.
go-review-lead
Orchestrate a comprehensive Go code review by triaging code changes, dispatching vertical review skills (security, concurrency, error, logic, performance, quality, test, observability) as parallel agents, then consolidating results into a unified report. Use for full Go PR review or comprehensive code review. Replaces…
security-review
A code-security review guide that checks code changes, pull requests, or services for risks an attacker could exploit.
go-concurrency-review
Review Go code for concurrency safety and goroutine lifecycle issues including race conditions, deadlocks, goroutine leaks, mutex misuse, and context propagation. Trigger when code contains go func, channels, sync primitives, WaitGroup, errgroup, or goroutine lifecycle management. Use for concurrency-focused review of…
go-error-review
Review Go code for error handling correctness, nil safety, and failure-path integrity including ignored errors, missing wrapping, panic misuse, SQL/HTTP resource lifecycle, and transaction patterns. Trigger when code contains error returns, panic calls, sql.Rows, transactions, HTTP client/server code, or nil-sensitive…
go-observability-review
Review Go code for observability gaps: missing structured logging, broken trace context propagation, Prometheus cardinality explosions, span lifecycle errors, and sensitive fields in logs. Dispatched by go-review-lead as a vertical reviewer. Also trigger directly when the user says "review my logging", "check my…