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.

52

Quality

58%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/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

61%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 is concise and well-organized into clear sections with a sensible workflow, but it stays at a high level: no concrete refactor patterns or examples are provided, the verification step lacks an explicit feedback loop, and the single referenced resource file is missing.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation feedback loop after 'verify regressions' (e.g. 'If tests fail, revert or fix the slice and re-run before proceeding').

Provide one or two concrete refactor techniques or short code examples (extract function, introduce parameter object) instead of only high-level instructions.

Create the referenced resources/implementation-playbook.md or remove the dangling reference so progressive disclosure points to a real file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean, well-sectioned, and assumes Claude's competence; the only minor padding is the opening paragraph that restates the description verbatim and the slightly redundant 'Context' section.

4 / 5

Actionability

Instructions give concrete steps ('Propose a refactor plan with incremental steps', 'Apply changes in small slices', 'Update tests and verify regressions') but provide no specific refactor techniques, patterns, or worked examples, leaving key execution details missing.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence exists (assess -> plan -> apply slices -> update tests -> verify) but there is no explicit validation/feedback checkpoint ('if tests fail, fix and re-run'), and refactoring is a behavior-changing operation that the rubric caps at 3 without validation.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good section structure with a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ('If detailed patterns are required, open resources/implementation-playbook.md'), but that referenced file does not exist in the bundle, a minor organization gap.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

56%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 states a clear capability and domain but lacks any explicit trigger ('Use when...') guidance, capping completeness, and uses second-person voice which penalizes specificity. It is a competent but incomplete trigger description.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers (e.g. 'Use when refactoring tangled code, reducing duplication, or applying SOLID/clean-code patterns').

Rewrite in third person ('Refactors and cleans code...') instead of 'You are a code refactoring expert' to avoid the specificity penalty.

Add natural synonyms users say ('code smells', 'technical debt') to broaden trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('code refactoring') and two concrete actions ('Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance'), which is a base-3 match, but the second-person 'You are a code refactoring expert' voice triggers the mandatory -1 specificity penalty.

2 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (analyze and refactor code to improve quality/maintainability/performance) but no 'Use when...' trigger clause, so the missing 'when' caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user-facing terms ('code refactoring', 'refactor', 'clean code', 'SOLID design patterns') with good coverage; a few common synonyms like 'technical debt' or 'code smells' are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The refactoring/clean-code/SOLID niche is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against generic code-review or coding skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

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.