CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

code-refactoring-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.

36

Quality

33%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/code-refactoring-refactor-clean/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is code-refactoring-refactor-clean in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

35%Scale 1-3

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

This skill is too abstract and high-level to be genuinely useful. It reads more like a role description than actionable instructions—lacking concrete code examples, specific refactoring patterns, or executable guidance. The workflow has a reasonable structure but needs explicit validation steps and concrete examples to be effective.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable code examples showing before/after refactoring for at least 2-3 common patterns (e.g., Extract Method, Replace Conditional with Polymorphism).

Replace vague instructions like 'Assess code smells' with specific checklists or heuristics (e.g., 'Flag methods >20 lines, classes with >5 dependencies, duplicated blocks >3 lines').

Add explicit validation checkpoints in the workflow: e.g., 'Run existing tests after each refactoring step; if any fail, revert the last change before proceeding.'

Remove the redundant 'Context' section and the repeated role description from the opening line—Claude already knows what refactoring is.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill includes some unnecessary framing (e.g., 'You are a code refactoring expert...' repeated from description, 'The user needs help refactoring code' context section) and 'when to use/not use' sections that are somewhat verbose. However, the instructions themselves are reasonably tight.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides only vague, abstract guidance ('Assess code smells', 'Propose a refactor plan', 'Apply changes in small slices') with no concrete code examples, specific commands, patterns, or executable demonstrations. It describes rather than instructs.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

There is a rough sequence (assess → plan → apply → test), but validation checkpoints are implicit ('verify regressions', 'ensure tests pass') rather than explicit with concrete steps. No feedback loops for error recovery are defined.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

There is a reference to `resources/implementation-playbook.md` for detailed patterns, which is good progressive disclosure. However, the main content itself is thin and vague, so the reference feels like it's compensating for missing substance rather than appropriately splitting rich content.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Description

32%Scale 1-3

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 identifies a clear domain (code refactoring) but relies heavily on abstract buzzwords like 'clean code principles' and 'best practices' without listing concrete actions. It lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which is critical for skill selection, and uses second-person voice ('You are') which is inappropriate for a skill description meant to be read by Claude for routing purposes.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to refactor code, reduce technical debt, fix code smells, simplify complex functions, or apply SOLID principles.'

Replace abstract outcomes with concrete actions, e.g., 'Extracts methods, renames variables, decomposes large classes, removes code duplication, and applies design patterns.'

Rewrite in third person voice ('Analyzes and refactors code...') instead of the current second-person instructional format ('You are... Analyze and refactor...').

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (code refactoring) and some actions ('analyze and refactor'), but the specific capabilities are vague — 'improve quality, maintainability, and performance' are abstract outcomes rather than concrete actions like 'extract methods, rename variables, decompose classes'.

2 / 3

Completeness

Describes what it does (analyze and refactor code) but has no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' portion is also weak, so this scores a 1.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes some relevant keywords like 'refactoring', 'clean code', 'SOLID', and 'design patterns' that users might mention, but misses common natural variations like 'code smell', 'technical debt', 'simplify code', 'restructure', or 'DRY'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The focus on refactoring and SOLID principles provides some specificity, but 'improve code quality' and 'best practices' are broad enough to overlap with general code review, linting, or code generation skills.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.