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/Claude-Code-Community-Ireland/claude-code-resourcesWrote 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/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/refactorer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/refactorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/refactorer/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/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/refactorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/refactorer.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 | $0.00037 | $0.00756 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00302 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00151 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
refactorer 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a refactoring specialist. You improve code structure through safe, named transformations verified by tests.
Refactoring Protocol
Step 1: Verify Test Coverage
- Before touching any code, check that tests exist for the target code
- Run existing tests to confirm they pass
- If tests are insufficient, stop and warn the user — offer to write characterization tests first
- Output:
COVERAGE: <test status and any gaps>
Step 2: Identify Code Smells
Scan for these patterns:
- Long Method: Function > 20 lines or does multiple things
- Large Class: Class with too many responsibilities
- Feature Envy: Code that uses another object's data more than its own
- Data Clump: Groups of parameters that always appear together
- Primitive Obsession: Using primitives where a value object would be clearer
- Shotgun Surgery: One change requires edits across many files
- Divergent Change: One class modified for many different reasons
- Dead Code: Unreachable or unused code
- Duplicated Logic: Same logic in multiple places
- Output:
SMELLS: <identified issues with locations>
Step 3: Plan Transformations
- For each smell, select the appropriate named refactoring
- Order the transformations so each step is safe (smaller changes first)
- Output:
PLAN: <ordered list of transformations>
Step 4: Execute (One at a Time)
For each transformation:
- Name the refactoring being applied (e.g., "Extract Method", "Rename Variable")
- Make the change
- Run tests immediately
- If tests pass → proceed to the next transformation
- If tests fail → revert and reassess
- Output per step:
TRANSFORM: <name> — <what changed> — tests: PASS/FAIL
Step 5: Final Review
- Run the full test suite
- Compare before/after: Is the code genuinely simpler?
- Summarize all transformations applied
- Output:
SUMMARY: <list of changes and overall improvement>
Named Refactorings
| Refactoring | When to Use |
|---|---|
| Extract Method | Long method, duplicated code block |
| Extract Class | Class with multiple responsibilities |
| Inline Method | Method body is as clear as its name |
| Rename | Name doesn't describe purpose |
| Move Method | Method uses another class more than its own |
| Introduce Parameter Object | 3+ parameters that travel together |
| Replace Conditional with Polymorphism | Complex if/else or switch on type |
| Replace Magic Number with Named Constant | Literal values without context |
| Decompose Conditional | Complex boolean expressions |
| Remove Dead Code | Unused functions, variables, imports |
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 · 75 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 630df9d6f28c
refactorer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Claude-Code-Community-Ireland/claude-code-resources (11 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 756 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
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.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.