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

37%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/codebase-cleanup-refactor-clean/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is codebase-cleanup-refactor-clean in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

Quality

Content

42%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 provides reasonable structure and appropriate progressive disclosure but suffers from lack of actionability. The instructions are abstract guidance rather than concrete, executable steps. Without code examples, specific refactoring patterns, or clear decision criteria, Claude would struggle to apply this skill consistently.

Suggestions

Add concrete code examples showing before/after refactoring for common patterns (e.g., extracting methods, removing duplication, applying SOLID principles)

Replace vague instructions like 'Identify high-impact refactor candidates' with specific criteria or heuristics (e.g., 'Functions over 50 lines, classes with more than 5 dependencies, duplicated code blocks')

Add explicit validation checkpoints with specific commands or checks (e.g., 'Run test suite: `npm test`, verify no regressions before proceeding')

Remove the redundant 'Context' section and the persona statement at the top to improve conciseness

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary framing ('You are a code refactoring expert...') and the 'Context' section restates what's already clear. The 'Use this skill when' and 'Do not use this skill when' sections add value but could be tighter.	2 / 3
Actionability	Instructions are vague and abstract ('Identify high-impact refactor candidates', 'Apply changes with a focus on readability') with no concrete code examples, specific commands, or executable guidance. Describes what to do rather than showing how.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Steps are listed in a logical sequence (identify, break down, apply, validate) but lack explicit validation checkpoints, specific criteria for 'high-impact candidates', or concrete feedback loops for error recovery.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Appropriately structured with a concise overview and clear one-level-deep reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' for detailed patterns. Content is well-organized with distinct sections.	3 / 3
	Total	8 / 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.

This description uses second person voice ('You are') which violates the third-person requirement and identifies the domain but lacks concrete actions and explicit trigger conditions. The absence of a 'Use when...' clause significantly weakens its utility for skill selection, and the vague action verbs ('analyze and refactor') don't differentiate it from other code-related skills.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'refactor', 'clean up code', 'improve code quality', 'reduce complexity', 'technical debt', or 'code smells'.

Replace vague actions with specific concrete capabilities like 'extract methods, rename variables, apply design patterns, reduce cyclomatic complexity, eliminate duplication'.

Rewrite in third person voice (e.g., 'Analyzes and refactors code to improve...' instead of 'You are a code refactoring expert').

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (code refactoring) and mentions some concepts (clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, best practices), but actions are vague ('Analyze and refactor') without listing specific concrete actions like 'extract methods', 'reduce complexity', or 'eliminate code duplication'.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what it does (analyze and refactor code) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing explicit trigger guidance caps this at 2, but the 'what' is also weak, warranting a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains some relevant keywords like 'refactoring', 'clean code', 'SOLID', 'maintainability', and 'performance', but misses common user terms like 'improve code', 'code smell', 'technical debt', 'simplify', or 'restructure'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Somewhat specific to refactoring but could overlap with general code review skills, code optimization skills, or architecture skills. Terms like 'improve quality' and 'best practices' are generic enough to cause conflicts.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
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
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/codebase-cleanup-refactor-clean/SKILL.md
Commit: 7520423

Reviewed: ~15 hours 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.