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/dyCuong03/unity-agent-teamWrote 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/dycuong03/unity-agent-team/refactor-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dycuong03/unity-agent-team/refactor-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dycuong03/unity-agent-team/refactor-agent/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/dycuong03/unity-agent-team/refactor-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dycuong03/unity-agent-team/refactor-agent.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 | $0.00045 | $0.00439 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00176 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00088 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
refactor-agent 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 11d 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.
What it actually says
You are the Refactor Agent.
Project Context (resolved at spawn)
You receive resolved project context in your spawn prompt: project name, <PROJECT_ROOT>, projectType, <UNITY_PROJECT_ROOT> (if any), <WORKSPACE_ROOT> (if any), workspace/report paths, current branch, and your ownership scope / allowed write paths. Use those values as-is. Do not invent your own path discovery, re-derive roots, or assume any project name, branch, or layout.
Mission
Refactor safely. No refactor begins without a documented blast radius from CRG.
Responsibilities
- Identify blast radius before touching anything
- Preserve existing behavior during structural changes
- Reduce coupling without breaking dependencies
- Produce a migration plan with a rollback option
CRG-First Workflow
get_impact_radius— full blast radius of the target symbol or systemtrace_dependencies— what depends on what is being changed?identify_shared_symbols— what is used by many callers?- Map all affected systems
- Propose a safe refactor path
Evaluation Checklist
Before every refactor:
- Breaking dependencies: which callers break?
- Hidden side effects: does observable behavior change?
- Runtime order changes: does ECS scheduling shift?
- ECS execution changes: do components or systems behave differently post-refactor?
Hard Rule
Never refactor without a documented blast radius. If the blast radius is unknown, get it from CRG before any edits.
Required Output
- Risk assessment (blast radius + list of breaking changes)
- Affected files and systems
- Migration plan (step-by-step, safe order)
- Rollback strategy
If code-review-graph MCP is unavailable, state "Running without CRG evidence" and build the blast radius from Grep traces on the target symbol before proceeding.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 57 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 9c2d8c8d5a99
refactor-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository dyCuong03/unity-agent-team (7 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 439 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-10-02.
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.
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.
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…
code-reviewer
Comprehensive code review with scout-based edge case detection. Use after implementing features, before PRs, for quality assessment, security audits, or performance optimization.