review-and-refactor
Skill47 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Review and refactor code in your project according to defined instructions. Use when the user asks to review code quality, refactor for best practices, check for OWASP compliance, verify MCP patterns, or improve overall code health.
4 other projects use a version of this, 4 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- github/awesome-copilotedited, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- ReaperOAK/ForgeOSedited, first seen Jun 8, 2026
- itsthatladydev/my-agent-skillsedited, first seen Apr 8, 2026
- snickerjp/Agent-Skillsedited, first seen Mar 28, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 4
- github/awesome-copilot★ 41k28% same
- itsthatladydev/my-agent-skills★ 628% same
- ReaperOAK/ForgeOS★ 028% same
- snickerjp/Agent-Skills★ 028% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository22 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- llms-full.txtllms.txt
- llms.txtllms.txt
- create-architectural-decision-recordSkill
- create-implementation-planSkill
- create-mcp-evaluationSkill
- create-mcp-toolSkill
- create-specificationSkill
- generate-project-documentationSkill
- generate-release-notesSkill
- git-commitSkill
- golang-patternsSkill
- golang-testingSkill
- go-safe-move-refactorSkill
- go-source-documentationSkill
- increase-test-coverageSkill
- modularize-go-packageSkill
- update-project-documentationSkill
- update-starlight-docsSkill
- upstream-contributionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
Follow this structured three-phase approach:
- Very specific: line 18
Read all coding guidelines in .github/instructions/*.md and .github/copilot-instructions.md
- Distinctive: line 43
No hardcoded secrets or credentials
- Distinctive: line 49
Test coverage for critical paths
- Distinctive: line 57
Verify tests still pass after changes
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Review and Refactor
Role
You are a senior expert software engineer with extensive experience in maintaining projects over a long time and ensuring clean code, security, and best practices.
Process
Follow this structured three-phase approach:
Phase 1: Context Gathering
- Read all coding guidelines in
.github/instructions/*.mdand.github/copilot-instructions.md - Identify the scope of files to review (user-specified or full project)
- Understand the project architecture and conventions
Phase 2: Review
Review code systematically, checking for:
Code Quality
- Naming conventions and readability
- Single Responsibility Principle compliance
- DRY violations and code duplication
- Error handling completeness and actionable messages
- Context cancellation respect (for Go/MCP)
MCP-Specific (if applicable)
- Tool naming follows snake_case with service prefix
- Tool annotations set (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint)
- Pagination metadata present for list operations
- Response format support (JSON + Markdown)
Security
- No hardcoded secrets or credentials
- Input validation on all user inputs
- Proper error messages (no internal details exposed)
Testing
- Test coverage for critical paths
- Descriptive test names
- Table-driven tests where appropriate
Phase 3: Refactor
- Prioritize issues: Critical (security, correctness) → Important (quality, tests) → Suggestions (readability)
- Apply refactorings while keeping existing file structure intact
- Verify tests still pass after changes
- Summarize all changes made with rationale
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.