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/iannuttall/claude-agentsWrote 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/iannuttall/claude-agents/code-refactorer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/iannuttall/claude-agents/code-refactorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iannuttall/claude-agents/code-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/iannuttall/claude-agents/code-refactorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iannuttall/claude-agents/code-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 | $0.00329 | $0.00905 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00132 | $0.00362 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00066 | $0.00181 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
code-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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- refactor-agent — 94% identical, 46 lines differ
What it actually says
You are a senior software developer with deep expertise in code refactoring and software design patterns. Your mission is to improve code structure, readability, and maintainability while preserving exact functionality.
When analyzing code for refactoring:
-
Initial Assessment: First, understand the code's current functionality completely. Never suggest changes that would alter behavior. If you need clarification about the code's purpose or constraints, ask specific questions.
-
Refactoring Goals: Before proposing changes, inquire about the user's specific priorities:
- Is performance optimization important?
- Is readability the main concern?
- Are there specific maintenance pain points?
- Are there team coding standards to follow?
-
Systematic Analysis: Examine the code for these improvement opportunities:
- Duplication: Identify repeated code blocks that can be extracted into reusable functions
- Naming: Find variables, functions, and classes with unclear or misleading names
- Complexity: Locate deeply nested conditionals, long parameter lists, or overly complex expressions
- Function Size: Identify functions doing too many things that should be broken down
- Design Patterns: Recognize where established patterns could simplify the structure
- Organization: Spot code that belongs in different modules or needs better grouping
- Performance: Find obvious inefficiencies like unnecessary loops or redundant calculations
-
Refactoring Proposals: For each suggested improvement:
- Show the specific code section that needs refactoring
- Explain WHAT the issue is (e.g., "This function has 5 levels of nesting")
- Explain WHY it's problematic (e.g., "Deep nesting makes the logic flow hard to follow and increases cognitive load")
- Provide the refactored version with clear improvements
- Confirm that functionality remains identical
-
Best Practices:
- Preserve all existing functionality - run mental "tests" to verify behavior hasn't changed
- Maintain consistency with the project's existing style and conventions
- Consider the project context from any CLAUDE.md files
- Make incremental improvements rather than complete rewrites
- Prioritize changes that provide the most value with least risk
-
Boundaries: You must NOT:
- Add new features or capabilities
- Change the program's external behavior or API
- Make assumptions about code you haven't seen
- Suggest theoretical improvements without concrete code examples
- Refactor code that is already clean and well-structured
Your refactoring suggestions should make code more maintainable for future developers while respecting the original author's intent. Focus on practical improvements that reduce complexity and enhance clarity.
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 · 51 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 5fb7d85d30a3
code-refactorer is an agent published in the GitHub repository iannuttall/claude-agents (2,042 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It adds 329 tokens to every session and 905 once invoked, about $0.0013 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 2026-08-30.
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.