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 agentmods add skills/static-var/keystone/refactoringnpx skills add static-var/Keystone --skill refactoringgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/static-var/KeystoneWhat 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 | $0.00057 | $0.00933 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00466 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00187 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
refactoring 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 2d 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 — 93 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactoring
Core principle
Refactoring changes structure while preserving behavior. Improve design in small, reversible steps, with characterization or regression proof when behavior could drift.
Load when
Load for an existing software project when the user asks to improve code structure while preserving an identified behavior contract: extract or inline code, reduce duplication, clarify names or type boundaries, remove code smells, or reorganize ownership.
If the user wants behavior change, use implementation. If a failure cause is unknown, use root-cause-analysis. If the refactor is broad or risky, create a refactor doc before mutation.
At entry, use the full Keystone path when the work changes integrated project code and needs project-specific invariant proof. Handle isolated text cleanup, mechanical formatting, and standalone snippets directly. Explicit invocation selects the full Refactoring behavior.
Outcome contract
A complete refactor reports:
- the behavior invariant that must not change;
- smells or pressures addressed;
- isolation checked before mutation via
../_shared/gates/isolation.md; - characterization/regression proof used before risky edits;
- files changed and why each changed;
- verification commands/results or explicit proof gaps;
- checkpoint handoff to
change-reviewwhen review is needed.
Process
- Classify size and risk.
- Small/local: one area, clear invariant, existing proof likely enough.
- Large/cross-cutting: multiple boundaries, weak coverage, shared contracts, or context-window risk.
- Completion criterion: refactor path is either safe for direct mutation or documented first.
- For large refactors, write a refactor doc under
docs/keystone/refactors/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.mdbefore editing.- Include goal, invariants, smells, affected areas, slices, proof, rollback, and review focus.
- Completion criterion: doc is specific enough for
task-creationorimplementation.
- Pass isolation before mutation.
- Load/check
../_shared/gates/isolation.md. - Respect unrelated dirty files and protected scope.
- Completion criterion: mutation scope is safe.
- Load/check
- Establish behavior proof.
- Prefer existing behavior tests; add characterization coverage when the invariant lacks a tripwire.
- Completion criterion: there is a tripwire for accidental behavior change or a documented proof gap.
- Apply small refactorings.
- Prefer rename, extract, inline, move, split, consolidate, simplify conditionals, remove dead code, and clarify ownership.
- Keep public contracts stable unless explicitly approved.
- Completion criterion: each step is understandable and reversible.
- Use engineering standards.
- Load
../_shared/engineering-standards.mdfor architecture or ownership decisions. - Remove abstractions that lack current pressure.
- Completion criterion: the result has clearer ownership, state, naming, or boundaries.
- Load
- Verify.
- Load and pass
../_shared/gates/proof.mdfor the preserved invariant. - Completion criterion: behavior invariant is supported by observed evidence.
- Load and pass
- Checkpoint and hand off.
- Use
../_shared/gates/checkpoint.md. - Hand off to
change-reviewfor non-trivial refactors or leave an explicit review pointer.
- Use
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 93 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A d63fb4fe181a
refactoring is a skill published in the GitHub repository static-var/Keystone (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 933 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
criticism-self-criticism
触发：当一项工作已经完成、进入阶段验收、收到批评反馈，或反复出现同类错误需要系统纠偏时调用；常见信号包括 review、audit、retrospective、quality check、纠错与复盘。 English: Trigger after delivery or at a review checkpoint when quality must be examined honestly and errors must be corrected without defensiveness. Use this skill for structured self-review, feedback processing, and…
mass-line
触发：当你需要收集多方意见、把零散反馈整合成可执行方案，或把方案带回真实使用者/执行者验证时调用；常见信号包括 stakeholder input、user feedback、意见汇总、对齐与验证。 English: Trigger when input must be gathered from many people, synthesized into a clearer plan, and returned to the affected users or executors for validation. Use this skill for a collect-synthesize-validate loop.
workflows
触发：当你面临的任务明显需要多个思想武器协作时调用；常见信号包括：从零启动新项目、攻坚复杂疑难问题、对已有方案进行迭代优化。此 skill 提供标准化的跨 skill 工作流组合，解决"应该先用哪个 skill、怎么衔接"的问题。 English: Trigger when a task clearly requires multiple skills in sequence. Use this skill to select a standard workflow that chains skills together, defines data handoff between steps, and specifies…
concentrate-forces
触发：当多个任务同时争夺时间、注意力、算力或预算，必须确定主攻方向并停止分散用力时调用；常见信号包括优先级过多、资源紧张、推进分散、需要决定先做什么。 English: Trigger when limited resources are being split across too many tasks and one main target must be chosen. Use this skill to concentrate effort, sequence work decisively, and finish a meaningful breakthrough before expanding.
investigation-first
触发：当你准备下判断、做决策或提出建议，但事实、上下文或一手信息还不充分时优先调用；常见信号包括 unknowns、信息缺口、证据不足、领域陌生、需要先摸清现状。 English: Trigger before making claims or decisions when context is incomplete, evidence is weak, or the domain is unfamiliar. Use this skill to investigate first, gather firsthand facts, and let reality shape the conclusion.
overall-planning
触发：当你需要在多个目标、利益方或相互制约的指标之间做动态平衡时调用；常见信号包括 trade-offs、目标冲突、系统性约束、优化一项会伤害另一项。 English: Trigger when several important goals must be advanced together and optimizing one dimension can damage another. Use this skill to map the key relationships, avoid one-sided decisions, and balance the system as a whole.