codebase-cleanup-refactor-clean

tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill 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.

45%

Overall

Validation — 75%

Implementation — 35%

Activation — 33%

SKILL.md

Review

Evals

Activation

33%

The description identifies the refactoring domain but relies on abstract concepts rather than concrete actions. It critically lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...') which makes it difficult for Claude to know when to select this skill. The use of second person voice ('You are') violates the third-person requirement in the rubric.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'refactor', 'clean up code', 'code smell', 'technical debt', 'simplify', 'restructure'.

Replace vague actions with specific concrete capabilities like 'extract methods, apply design patterns, reduce code duplication, simplify conditional logic, improve naming conventions'.

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', 'improve quality') rather than listing specific concrete actions like 'extract methods', 'reduce cyclomatic complexity', or 'apply dependency injection'.	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, and the 'what' is also weak.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some relevant keywords like 'refactoring', 'clean code', 'SOLID', but misses common natural variations users might say such as 'code smell', 'technical debt', 'simplify code', 'restructure', or 'code cleanup'.	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

Implementation

35%

This skill provides a reasonable structural framework for refactoring tasks but lacks the concrete, actionable content that would make it useful. It reads more like a high-level process description than executable guidance, with all substantive content deferred to an external playbook. The absence of any code examples, specific refactoring patterns, or concrete decision criteria significantly limits its practical value.

Suggestions

Add 2-3 concrete code examples showing before/after refactoring patterns (e.g., extracting a method, applying dependency injection)

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')

Include a concrete validation checklist with specific commands or test patterns rather than generic 'validate with tests'

Remove the persona framing ('You are a code refactoring expert...') as Claude already knows how to adopt roles

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary framing ('You are a code refactoring expert...') and the 'Use this skill when/Do not use this skill when' sections add moderate overhead without providing actionable guidance.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides only vague, abstract guidance ('Identify high-impact refactor candidates', 'Apply changes with a focus on readability') with no concrete code examples, specific commands, or executable patterns. Defers all concrete content to an external resource.	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	References external resource (implementation-playbook.md) appropriately, but the main content is too thin - it's essentially a stub pointing elsewhere rather than a useful overview with well-signaled deep-dives.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

75%

Warnings & errors only

Criteria	Description	Result
description_trigger_hint	Description may be missing an explicit 'when to use' trigger hint (e.g., 'Use when...')	Warning
metadata_version	'metadata' field is not a dictionary	Warning
license_field	'license' field is missing	Warning
body_steps	No step-by-step structure detected (no ordered list); consider adding a simple workflow	Warning

	Total	12 / 16 Passed

Reviewed

19 days ago

Table of Contents

Activation 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.