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

53%

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 ./skills/codebase-cleanup-refactor-clean/SKILL.md

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.

A compact, well-structured instruction-only skill that respects the token budget and points to a single reference for detail. Its weaknesses are implicit validation checkpoints and reliance on a referenced playbook that is absent from the bundle.

Suggestions

Make the validation feedback loop explicit (e.g., 'After applying changes, run the test suite; if any test fails, fix the regression before proceeding').

Provide 2-3 concrete refactor heuristics inline (e.g., thresholds for extraction, signals of SOLID violations) so the skill is actionable without the missing playbook.

Either create 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' or remove the reference, since the file is not present in the bundle.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and well-organized with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the only minor trim is the 'Context' section, which restates the opening sentence and the description.	4 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is concrete in direction ('Identify high-impact refactor candidates', 'Break work into small, testable steps', 'Validate with tests') but provides no specific heuristics, commands, or examples, and the detailed playbook it defers to ('resources/implementation-playbook.md') is not present in the bundle.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A sequence is present (identify -> break into steps -> apply -> validate) and validation is mentioned, but feedback checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit (no 'if tests fail, fix and re-run'), which fits the anchor with present-but-implicit checkpoints.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Good section structure with a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md'; the only gap is that the referenced file does not exist in the bundle, a minor organization defect.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

45%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 clearly states what the skill does but is written in second person and lacks an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, limiting its completeness and trigger quality. Specificity is generic rather than enumerating concrete refactor techniques.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person and add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete user trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to clean up a codebase, remove duplication, or prepare code for new feature work').

Replace the generic 'Analyze and refactor' with specific actions (e.g., 'extract duplicated logic into shared modules, simplify complex conditionals, apply SOLID principles').

Add natural synonyms users say ('refactor this', 'clean up this code', 'reduce duplication') to improve trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('code refactoring') and one or two generic actions ('Analyze and refactor the provided code') but lacks a list of specific concrete techniques; second-person voice ('You are a code refactoring expert') triggers a one-point specificity penalty per the rubric guidelines.	2 / 5
Completeness	Provides a clear 'what' (refactor code to improve quality, maintainability, and performance) but has no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; per the rubric, a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords ('code refactoring', 'clean code principles', 'SOLID', 'best practices') but omits natural user phrasings like 'refactor this', 'clean up this code', or 'reduce duplication', so coverage of common variations is incomplete.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Code refactoring / clean code / SOLID' is a recognizable niche but still overlaps with general code-quality and software-engineering skills, so it could trigger for closely related skills.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
Path: skills/codebase-cleanup-refactor-clean/SKILL.md
Commit: b1aebac

Reviewed: ~17 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.