codebase-cleanup-refactor-clean

You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.

Quality

43%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agent/skills/codebase-cleanup-refactor-clean/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

38%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body has clear section structure and a usable rough sequence, but it offers only vague high-level guidance with no executable examples, lacks an explicit validation feedback loop, and points to non-existent detail files via inconsistent paths.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable guidance: at least one worked refactor example (before/after) or named patterns (extract method, replace conditional with polymorphism) instead of only abstract directives.

Create the referenced 'implementation-playbook.md' at a single consistent path and fix the conflicting references (pick either 'resources/' or 'sub-skills/', not both).

Turn validation into an explicit feedback loop ('run tests, if failures occur fix and re-run, only proceed when green') to lift workflow clarity above the destructive/batch cap of 3.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient and reasonably short, but it repeats the frontmatter description verbatim as the opening paragraph and the 'Context' section restates the same purpose, which is unnecessary padding that could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	The Instructions are high-level directives ('Identify high-impact refactor candidates and risks', 'Break work into small, testable steps', 'Apply changes with a focus on readability and stability') with no concrete code, commands, named refactor patterns, or worked examples, and the referenced playbook file does not exist to supply them.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A rough sequence is present (identify candidates, break into steps, apply, validate with tests) and a validation bullet exists, but there is no explicit feedback loop (validate, fix, re-validate) for a batch/destructive code-modification skill, so workflow clarity is capped at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section structure is reasonable, but the referenced detail files do not exist and the same playbook is referenced via two inconsistent paths ('resources/implementation-playbook.md' and './sub-skills/implementation-playbook.md'), making navigation broken and confusing.	2 / 5
	Total	10 / 20 Passed

Description

48%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description names a clear domain and a couple of concrete actions but is written in second person and omits any explicit 'Use when' trigger guidance, capping completeness and lowering specificity. It is distinct but not yet maximally triggerable.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person (e.g., 'Refactors and cleans code...') to avoid the second-person specificity penalty.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when cleaning up a codebase, removing duplication, paying down tech debt, or preparing code for new feature work').

Expand the action list beyond 'analyze and refactor' to specific techniques (e.g., 'extracts duplicated logic, simplifies modules, renames for clarity') to lift specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Base would be 3 — it names the domain ('code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns') plus two concrete actions ('Analyze and refactor the provided code'), but the action set is not comprehensive; however the description uses second person ('You are a code refactoring expert', 'Analyze and refactor'), which per the rubric reduces specificity by 1, yielding 2.	2 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states the 'what' ('Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance') but provides no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes some natural keywords a user might say ('refactoring', 'clean code', 'SOLID', 'maintainability') but misses common variations and synonyms users actually use such as 'clean up', 'tidy up', 'restructure', or 'pay down tech debt'.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The refactoring / clean-code / SOLID niche is mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against closely related skills like general code review or simplification skills.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 1 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: Dokhacgiakhoa/Agent-Skills-4-Vibe-Coding-CLI
Path: .agent/skills/codebase-cleanup-refactor-clean/SKILL.md
Commit: c4a059b

Reviewed: 1 hour ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.