CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

dev-refactor

AI DevKit · Systematic structural or multi-file refactors across any stack while preserving behavior and public contracts. Use for reorganizing modules, boundaries, naming, APIs/contracts, staged refactor plans, or refactor risk review.

Quality

89%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

86%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.

An unusually disciplined instruction-only skill body: terse, expert-level rules with a well-sequenced workflow that includes baseline and final validation plus explicit stop conditions. The two weaknesses are the absence of a concrete example or template (a sample refactor brief would make the guidance copy-paste ready) and the lack of an explicit error-recovery loop when validation fails mid-refactor.

Suggestions

Add an explicit feedback loop after the final validation step, e.g., 'If validation fails: revert the current stage (or fix and re-run `dev-smoke`) before proceeding' — this closes the workflow_clarity gap for destructive multi-file moves.

Include a compact example of the medium/large refactor brief (one filled-in template with evidence, do/defer/avoid ranking, and target shape) to lift actionability to copy-paste ready.

Name one concrete evidence-gathering command pattern for step 1 (e.g., how to capture imports/consumers) so 'current-code evidence' is executable rather than implied.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and efficient throughout: every bullet is actionable guidance ('Subtract before adding', 'Separate moves/renames from logic changes', 'Validate with fresh command output') with zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows and no padding. All 39 lines earn their place, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Actionability

Mostly concrete and executable: a precise size-classification rubric ('small = local/no public movement; medium = multi-file/extraction/boundary/export touch; large = package/cross-package/staged migration/broad consumers'), an itemized brief checklist, a staged sequence with a named tool (`dev-smoke`), and enumerated validation steps. Not 5: there is no worked example or template (e.g., a sample refactor brief or evidence-gathering command), and some directives remain abstract ('Check reader load', 'Prefer existing conventions'); not 3: the guidance is specific and directly followable, not pseudocode-level.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 13-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints — a pre-edit baseline ('run `dev-smoke` on affected flows; keep the script until the last stage') and a final validation step ('tests, compile/typecheck, lint, build, `dev-smoke` rerun matching the baseline, diff review') plus a Stop section of pause conditions. Not 5: there is no explicit error-recovery loop ('if validation fails, fix and re-validate / revert the stage'); not 3: validation is explicit at both start and end, so the missing-feedback-loop cap does not apply.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single SKILL.md under 50 lines with no bundle files and no content that belongs in a separate reference file; sections (Rules, Workflow, Stop) are well-organized and easy to navigate. The under-50-lines simple-skill exception applies, so well-organized sections alone merit 5; cross-references to sibling skills (`dev-simplify`, `dev-smoke`) are clearly signaled, not buried.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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.

A strong description: it states a clear capability, uses an explicit 'Use for' trigger clause with concrete trigger phrases, and stays concise without fluff. The main gaps are missing common synonyms for triggering ('restructure', 'rename') and no in-description boundary against closely related cleanup/simplification skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete, specific actions — 'reorganizing modules, boundaries, naming, APIs/contracts, staged refactor plans, or refactor risk review' — anchored by a clear capability statement ('structural or multi-file refactors... preserving behavior and public contracts'). Coverage is comprehensive for the refactoring domain with no padding, matching the anchor-5 example pattern rather than anchor 4's 'minor gaps'.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' ('Systematic structural or multi-file refactors across any stack while preserving behavior and public contracts') and a concrete 'when' clause ('Use for reorganizing modules, boundaries, naming, APIs/contracts, staged refactor plans, or refactor risk review'). This mirrors the anchor-5 example structure of a clear capability statement followed by an explicit trigger list.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: 'refactor', 'reorganizing modules', 'naming', 'APIs/contracts', 'staged refactor plans', 'refactor risk review' are phrases users would plausibly say. Not 5 because common synonyms and phrasings like 'restructure', 'rename', 'split up code', or 'move files' are absent; not 3 because several natural terms (not just generic ones) are present.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The structural-refactoring niche is mostly distinct, with differentiated triggers like 'staged refactor plans' and 'refactor risk review'. Not 5: 'across any stack' keeps it broad, it overlaps with code-cleanup/simplification skills, and the description itself doesn't carve out that boundary (only the body's 'Use dev-simplify for local readability' line does); not 3: the structural/multi-file framing meaningfully separates it from generic code-help skills.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

codeaholicguy/ai-devkit

Path

skills/dev-refactor/SKILL.md

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.