Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

rust-refactor(Rust refactor 命令行)

rust-refactor 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

rust-refactor 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 7,952。

总安装 3,432周安装 143GitHub Stars 131下载 1,144核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:rust-refactor(Rust refactor 命令行)
来源仓库:https://github.com/pproenca/dot-skills
仓库路径:skills/rust-refactor
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/pproenca/dot-skills --skill rust-refactor
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/pproenca/dot-skills --skill rust-refactor

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

Rust refactor 命令行工具用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息。适用于 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理的任务。

通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装,需结合原始 README 核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写操作。该技能适合在代码重构与优化流程中辅助协作管理。

来源仓库内路径:skills/rust-refactor

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/pproenca/dot-skills --skill rust-refactor;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

rust-refactor 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/pproenca/dot-skills --skill rust-refactor。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

rust-refactor 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

rust-refactor 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

rust-refactor 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

rust-refactor 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 3,432 次,近一周安装 143 次,下载 1,144 次,GitHub 131 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

rust-refactor 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
rust-refactor

Rust refactor 命令行 · 本页

3,432131需要联网未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Rust Refactoring Frameworks

This skill teaches you to look at working Rust code and see unnecessary complexity. Every refactoring starts with a diagnostic question, follows a transformation pattern, and ends with a self-review checklist.


The Two Refactoring Philosophies

Before touching code, decide which mode you are in.

Defensive mode: Add abstraction for safety. Split types. Create From bridges. Audit every consumer. Use when: security-critical code, type evolution, multi-crate dependencies.

Offensive mode: Delete indirection. Remove forwarded parameters. Collapse layers. Use when: the abstraction adds complexity without adding safety, the mediator just forwards, the parameter is always None.

Know which mode you are in. Do not add abstraction when you should be deleting, and do not delete safety layers when you should be adding them.


The 4 Diagnostic Questions

Run these BEFORE touching any code. They determine WHAT to refactor.

1. "Is this parameter just being forwarded?"

Signal: The function body only passes the parameter to another function. No local logic depends on it. Action: Remove it. Replace with ambient/global access at the point of actual use. Remove from the lowest layer first, fix compilation errors upward.

2. "Is this feature flag still needed?"

Signal: Stage is Stable or equivalent, default is enabled, no rollback planned. Action: Remove the flag. Delete the conditional. Rename gated functions (init_if_enabled -> init). Remove monitoring scaffolding.

3. "Is this file doing too many things?"

Signal: File over ~500 lines with impl blocks operating on different domains (e.g., threads AND logs AND jobs). Action: Split by domain (what it operates on), not by layer. See Module Decomposition Guide below.

4. "Does this struct have mutually exclusive optional fields?"

Signal: 2+ Option<T> fields where only one should be set at a time. Code like if a.is_some() {assert!(b.is_none())} or fields named x_config that only apply to one mode. Action: Convert to an enum where each variant carries only its relevant data.

// BEFORE: invalid states representable
struct Auth { api_key: Option<String>, oauth_token: Option<String>, storage: Option<TokenStore> }
// AFTER: each variant carries only what it needs
enum Auth { ApiKey(String), OAuth { token: String, storage: TokenStore } }

The 6 Refactoring Transformations

Transformation 1: Forwarded Parameter -> Ambient Access

// BEFORE: metrics threaded through every signature, never used locally
pub async fn process_batch(db: &Database, config: &Config,
    metrics: Option<&MetricsClient>) {           // forwarded
    for item in db.pending_items(config).await? {
        process_item(db, item, metrics).await?;  // forwarded again
    }
}
// AFTER: ambient access at the single point of use
pub async fn process_batch(db: &Database, config: &Config) {
    for item in db.pending_items(config).await? {
        process_item(db, item).await?;
    }
}
pub async fn process_item(db: &Database, item: Item) {
    let result = transform(item)?;
    db.save(result).await?;
    if let Some(m) = metrics::global().as_ref() { m.counter("items_processed", 1); }
}

Coordination: Remove from the lowest layer first. Every intermediate commit must compile.

Transformation 2: Monolithic File -> Domain-Split Modules

// BEFORE: src/runtime.rs (950 lines, four concerns)
// AFTER:
src/runtime/mod.rs       (~30 lines: struct def, init, re-exports)
src/runtime/threads.rs   (~200 lines)
src/runtime/logs.rs      (~250 lines)
src/runtime/jobs.rs      (~300 lines)
src/runtime/cache.rs     (~120 lines)

Each file is an impl block extension of the same struct. Tests move WITH their code.

Transformation 3: Big-Bang Type Change -> Incremental From Bridge

// STEP 1: New types alongside old, with From bridges
impl From<&LegacyPolicy> for NetworkPolicy {
    fn from(value: &LegacyPolicy) -> Self {
        match value {
            LegacyPolicy::FullAccess => NetworkPolicy::Enabled,
            _ => NetworkPolicy::Restricted,
        }
    }
}
// STEP 2: Runtime carries both representations simultaneously
pub struct Permissions {
    pub legacy: LegacyPolicy,         // existing consumers keep working
    pub network_policy: NetworkPolicy, // new consumers use richer types
}

Stacked changes -- each step is a separate, independently compilable commit:

  1. Add new types and From bridges
  2. Plumb new types through runtime alongside old
  3. Migrate consumers one at a time (one commit per subsystem)
  4. Remove legacy type only after ALL consumers migrated

Transformation 4: Dead Feature Flag -> Clean Removal

// BEFORE: init_if_enabled(config) -> Option<Handle>
// AFTER:  init(config) -> Handle  (unconditional, renamed)

Full cleanup sequence:

  1. Remove flag check from all call sites
  2. Rename gated functions: init_if_enabled -> init
  3. Simplify return types: Option<Handle> -> Handle
  4. Move the flag to Stage::Removed in the features registry
  5. Remove conditional branches entirely (do not just change the default)
  6. Check #[cfg(feature = "...")] in Cargo.toml -- make those deps unconditional
  7. Remove comparison/discrepancy metrics that tracked old vs new path
  8. Delete the feature flag definition

Order: ship -> stabilize -> clean structure -> optimize -> remove flag -> remove scaffolding.

Transformation 5: Crate Extraction with Measurement

Not just code organization -- this is about build performance.

# 1. Measure baseline
cargo build -p parent-crate --timings   # record check + test compile time
# 2. Extract: create new crate, move code, add re-exports for backward compat
# 3. Measure after
cargo build -p parent-crate --timings   # compare
# 4. Report in commit message:
#    cargo check: 57.08s -> 53.54s (~6.2% faster)
#    cargo test --no-run: 2m39.9s -> 2m20s (~12.4% faster)

Extraction sequence:

  1. Identify a domain-coherent boundary with self-contained dependencies
  2. Create new crate with minimal Cargo.toml
  3. Move code, keeping re-exports in the original crate for backward compat
  4. Update workspace manifests and lockfiles
  5. Verify: cargo test -p parent-crate && cargo test -p new-crate

Transformation 6: Mutually Exclusive Options -> Enum

// BEFORE: three options, only one valid at a time
struct ShellMode {
    direct_cmd: Option<String>,
    zsh_fork_config: Option<ZshForkConfig>,
    pty_handle: Option<PtyHandle>,
}
// AFTER: disjoint union, invalid states unrepresentable
enum ShellMode { Direct(String), ZshFork(ZshForkConfig), Pty(PtyHandle) }

Steps: Audit construction sites for valid combinations -> define enum variants -> replace struct construction -> replace if x.is_some() with match -> remove defensive assertions.


The "Rewrite, Don't Rewire" Principle

When the bug is in a function's LOGIC (not its wiring), rewrite the body with explicit ordered checks. Do not delegate to an existing API that happens to produce correct results.

// WRONG: rewire through existing API ("happens to work")
fn resolve_policy(input: &Input) -> Policy {
    default_policy(input).override_with(input.overrides())
}
// RIGHT: explicit ordered checks
fn resolve_policy(input: &Input) -> Policy {
    if input.is_admin() { return Policy::FullAccess; }
    if input.has_restriction("network") { return Policy::NetworkDenied; }
    if input.is_sandbox_mode() { return Policy::ReadOnly; }
    Policy::Standard
}

The explicit version is more auditable, more testable, and more robust to future changes in the delegated implementation.


Module Decomposition Guide

Group code by WHAT it operates on, not by architectural layer. Each domain file contains the impl block for that domain's methods on the shared struct.

Wrong: models.rs / services.rs / controllers.rs (layer split). Right: runtime/threads.rs / runtime/logs.rs / runtime/jobs.rs (domain split).

Rules:

  • Tests move WITH their code. Never leave tests behind in the original file.
  • mod.rs contains only re-exports. Target ~30 lines.
  • Each file under 500 lines. If exceeded, it has sub-domains.
  • Named types over loose parameters. 2+ related values always passed together -> struct.
  • No logic changes in extraction commits. Move code as one unit. Verify with cargo test.

Self-Review Checklist

Run this after every refactoring. Every item must pass.

After refactoring, verify:
[ ] Every intermediate state compiles (no big-bang rewrites)
[ ] From bridges exist for any split types
[ ] Tests moved with their code (not left behind)
[ ] No new single-use helper functions introduced
[ ] Removed more code than you added (or justified why not)
[ ] No forwarded parameters remain (each param is used locally)
[ ] Module re-exports are clean (public API in mod.rs)
[ ] Feature flags for stable features removed
[ ] Structs with mutually exclusive options converted to enums
[ ] Build performance measured before/after crate extraction
[ ] Feature flag removal includes function renames and branch deletion
[ ] Chose the right refactoring mode (defensive vs offensive)
[ ] Function logic rewritten, not just rewired through delegation

If any item fails, you are not done. Fix it before declaring the refactoring complete.

平台分布

Codex

34.81%
按下载量换算398

Claude

32.86%
按下载量换算376

Cursor

18.01%
按下载量换算206

Gemini CLI

8.48%
按下载量换算97

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills