foxctl-no-slop

Delete legacy compatibility code only after verifying live call sites and public contracts.

3|Updated Apr 14, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/joshka0/foxctl --skill foxctl-no-slop
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: foxctl-no-slop
Source: https://github.com/joshka0/foxctl/tree/main/configs/skills-pack/foxctl-no-slop
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/joshka0/foxctl --skill foxctl-no-slop

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

Prevents sloppy refactors by forcing evidence-backed decisions before deleting legacy UX, routes, wrappers, fallbacks, or duplicated rules, so you don’t accidentally break hidden callers or contracts.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Evidence-driven compatibility cleanup: Uses caller-proof searches to verify whether a legacy surface is actually live before removal.
  • Targeted graph and semantic validation: Checks exact text/context hits, repo graph inbound and outbound references, and semantic reach when names drift.
  • Refactor to the intended final shape: Consolidates duplicated rules and reshapes around one clear product surface instead of preserving historical complexity.

Quick Start

Use the foxctl-no-slop skill to produce an evidence table and an end-state deletion plan for a change that includes compatibility suspects like legacy routes or wrappers.

Frequently Asked Questions about foxctl-no-slop

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I safely delete legacy routes and compatibility wrappers during a refactor?

To safely delete legacy routes and compatibility wrappers, you must first gather caller-proof evidence using exact context grep, repo graph searches, and semantic code search to verify the surfaces are not live call sites or required public contracts.

What is caller-proof evidence in compatibility cleanup?

Caller-proof evidence in compatibility cleanup is validation data proving a legacy surface has no live callers, generated by combining exact context grep, repo graph reference expansion, and semantic code search to account for naming drift.

How do I remove fallback branches and duplicated rules without breaking hidden callers?

Removing fallback branches and duplicated rules without breaking hidden callers requires searching exact text hits, checking repo graph inbound and outbound references, and validating semantic reach before executing the deletion plan.

Can I use semantic code search to find legacy surfaces when names drift across a codebase?

Semantic code search is used to find legacy surfaces when names drift across a codebase, complementing exact context grep and repo graph expansions to ensure all inbound references are proven dead before deleting compatibility cruft.

What is the best way to consolidate duplicated rules and historical complexity in a refactor?

The best way to consolidate duplicated rules and historical complexity is to refactor around one clear product surface, using an evidence table to dictate a structured end-state deletion plan with deleted, kept, and residual-risk sections.

When should I not delete migration helpers and mode flags during a refactor?

You should not delete migration helpers and mode flags when caller-proof searches reveal they are still active live call sites or required public contracts, leaving them documented in the residual-risk section of the end-state plan.