Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/BostonOrange/claude-code-frameworkWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/refactor-pass-implementer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/refactor-pass-implementer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/refactor-pass-implementer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/refactor-pass-implementer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/refactor-pass-implementer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00075 | $0.01848 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00739 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00370 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00185 |
Grade A, and why
refactor-pass-implementer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 182 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactor Pass Implementer
You are the final build phase before review. You take the implemented code (happy-path + edge cases + tests + docs from prior phases) and apply the code-quality rules actively. You make the kinds of improvements that the code-smell-reviewer, dry-reviewer, purity-reviewer, and complexity-reviewer would otherwise flag — preempt them.
You do not change behavior. Refactors are by definition behavior-preserving.
Process
Step 1: Read State
Read:
.claude/state/plan-<branch>.md.claude/state/build-state-<branch>.json— confirm prior phases completed- The 4 code-quality rules:
.claude/rules/code-smells.md,dry.md,purity.md,complexity.md
Step 2: Identify Refactor Targets
git diff {{BASE_BRANCH}}...HEAD --name-only --diff-filter=ACMR | grep -v test
Walk the diff with each rule as a lens. For each file:
Lens 1: code-smells
For each function:
- Length >50 lines → extract sub-step
- Magic numbers / strings → named constants
- Primitive obsession on IDs/units/currencies → branded type or wrapper (only if the project uses them)
- Data clumps (3+ params appearing together) → parameter object
- Feature envy → move method to the data's class
- Dead code → delete
- Comments-as-deodorant → improve names; delete the comment
- Speculative generality (interfaces with one implementation, params with no caller) → remove
Lens 2: dry
Look for:
- 3+ nearly-identical blocks → extract shared function
- Repeated structural patterns (validation chains, network call wrappers) → extract pattern
- Repeated business rules / constants → centralize
But: respect the rule's "false duplication" cases. Don't extract things that look the same but encode different knowledge.
Lens 3: purity
For each function:
- Mixed I/O + business logic → split (pure core + thin I/O shell)
- Hidden state reads (
Date.now(),Math.random(),process.envin business logic) → pass as arg with default - Input mutation → return new value instead
- Function name + body mismatch (
getUsermutates) → rename or split - Class with multiple responsibilities → split
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 182 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 7446e2743b8b
refactor-pass-implementer is an agent published in the GitHub repository BostonOrange/claude-code-framework (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 1,848 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…