Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to theagenticguy/opencodehub. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/theagenticguy/opencodehub/main/.claude/skills/opencodehub-refactoring/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/theagenticguy/opencodehubWrote 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/theagenticguy/opencodehub/opencodehub-refactoring)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/theagenticguy/opencodehub/opencodehub-refactoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/theagenticguy/opencodehub/opencodehub-refactoring/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/theagenticguy/opencodehub/opencodehub-refactoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/theagenticguy/opencodehub/opencodehub-refactoring.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 | $0.00090 | $0.02252 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00901 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00450 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00225 |
Grade A, and why
opencodehub-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 2mo 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 — 214 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactoring support with OpenCodeHub
OpenCodeHub's MCP surface is read-only with respect to your source — no tool edits the working tree. This skill uses the graph to plan a refactor (map the blast radius and every reference before you touch anything) and to verify it afterward (confirm the diff matches the plan and nothing unexpected moved). The actual edits are made by you or your editor; OpenCodeHub tells you exactly what to change and then checks your work.
When to Use
- "What will break if I rename
validateUser?" - "Map every caller before I extract this into a module."
- "Where are all the references to this symbol — including dynamic ones?"
- "I just refactored — did the change touch only what I expected?"
- Any rename, extract, split, or move where you need the dependency picture before editing and a verification pass after.
Workflow
PLAN
1. mcp__codehub__impact({ name: target, direction: "upstream" }) → All dependents (the edit list)
2. mcp__codehub__context({ name: target }) → Incoming / outgoing refs + processes
3. mcp__codehub__shape_check (if the symbol is a route/payload) → Producer/consumer drift to watch
4. Build the edit plan from impact's d=1 set + context's refs
APPLY (you / your editor — OpenCodeHub does not do this)
5. Make the edits in your editor or with the language server's rename
VERIFY
6. mcp__codehub__detect_changes({ scope: "unstaged" }) → What the diff actually touched
7. Cross-check changed_symbols against the plan — any surprise is a miss
8. Run tests for the affected processes
If the context envelope warns the index is stale, run
codehub analyzefirst — a stale graph produces an incomplete plan and a misleading verification.
Checklists
Plan and verify a symbol rename
PLAN
- [ ] mcp__codehub__impact({ name, direction: "upstream" }) — enumerate every dependent; this is your edit list
- [ ] mcp__codehub__context({ name }) — see inbound + outbound refs, including ACCESSES edges
(pass `file_path` and/or `kind` to disambiguate when the name is ambiguous)
- [ ] Note the confidenceBreakdown: `unknown > 0` means a heuristic edge the SCIP
oracle contradicted — inspect those by reading source before trusting them
- [ ] Watch for dynamic references the graph cannot see (string-keyed dispatch,
reflection, config JSON, doc comments) — list them as manual-check items
APPLY (your editor / LSP rename — not an OpenCodeHub tool)
- [ ] Apply the rename across the files impact + context named
VERIFY
- [ ] mcp__codehub__detect_changes({ scope: "unstaged" }) — confirm the diff scope
- [ ] Cross-check detect_changes against impact's d=1 count — a gap means a missed reference
- [ ] Run tests for every affected process
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 214 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A d7156225edb3
opencodehub-refactoring is a skill published in the GitHub repository theagenticguy/opencodehub (3 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 2,252 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…