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 uwuclxdy/agenticat --skill clean-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/uwuclxdy/agenticatWrote 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/uwuclxdy/agenticat/clean-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/uwuclxdy/agenticat/clean-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/uwuclxdy/agenticat/clean-code/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/uwuclxdy/agenticat/clean-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/uwuclxdy/agenticat/clean-code.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 | $0.00022 | $0.04844 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.01938 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00969 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00484 |
Grade A, and why
clean-code 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 — 374 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Clean Code Principles
Use these when you write, review, or refactor code.
Treat these as directional principles. Where a repo's established precedent or a language's own idioms conflict with a rule here, follow the local convention and match the surrounding code.
1. Naming & Readability
1.1 Avoid Disinformation
Never use variable names that create false expectations, contain misleading technical terms, or use visually confusing characters.
Do:
- Use names that honestly reflect the data structure (
accountsMap,accountsGroup). - Use distinct names for classes/variables so autocomplete doesn't trick you.
Don't:
- Name a map
accountListjust because it holds several items; to a programmer "list" means an indexed structure. - Create names that vary in tiny ways (e.g.,
ABCManagerForEfficientProcessingOfUsersvs...PersistingOfUsers). - Use characters that look identical (lowercase
lvs1, uppercaseOvs0).- Bad:
int a = l; if (O == l) a = O1; else l = O1;
- Bad:
1.2 Make Meaningful Distinctions
If two things have different names, they must do different things. Avoid meaningless noise words and number series.
Do:
- Reveal the actual role of variables (e.g.,
array,condition,transformation). - Use specific, role-based names for classes (e.g.,
OrderValidator,OrderRepository,OrderCalculator).
Don't:
- Add meaningless noise suffixes when you can't think of a better name (e.g.,
OrderManager,OrderHandler,OrderController,OrderProcessorall existing side by side).
1.3 Use Searchable, Pronounceable Names
Names should read as natural words and match the size of their scope, so they can be spoken aloud and found by search. Avoid cryptic abbreviations, single letters outside tiny scopes, and raw magic numbers.
Do:
- Use real words that describe intent.
- Good:
let generationTimestamp = new Date();
- Good:
- Use single letters (
i,j) only in tiny scopes, like a shortforloop.
Don't:
- Mash abbreviations into cryptic strings.
- Use single letters in larger scopes (searching for
ereturns thousands of useless hits). - Use an abbreviation that reads fine but decodes several ways: in
const tx = t[i], istxtime, tax, text, or transaction? A pronounceable, searchable name can still force the reader to keep a lookup table in their head.
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 Changed · +13 lines 50ed54afb219
- 1mo ago Changed a4a3eca82052
- 1mo ago First seen · 361 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 5104f839cf22
clean-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository uwuclxdy/agenticat (7 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 4,844 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
migration-review
Review database migration files when a change adds or modifies paths under migrations/. Use it before merge to collect forward, rollback, locking, and data-safety evidence.
otto-pr-review-loop
Run Polly and OCR on a PR until all findings settle.
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
learn-from-sage
Detection-gap (miss) analysis for Code Review Sage. Learn from shipped fixes, acted-on human comments, and design outcomes to close reviewer blind spots. Inline during review stages a candidate; a human triggers a one-shot AI consolidation into the live ruleset.
no-mistakes
Validate committed feature-branch changes through the no-mistakes pipeline: intent, rebase, review, test, docs, lint, push, PR, and CI. Use when the user asks to run no-mistakes, ship safely, validate before pushing, or gate a change before it reaches upstream.
factory-gitlab-rereview
Re-review a GitLab merge request after new commits and reconcile the previous review.