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/juanmhidalgo/claude-pluginsWrote 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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/refactor-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/refactor-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/refactor-analyzer/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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/refactor-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/refactor-analyzer.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 | $0.00041 | $0.00437 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00175 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00087 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
refactor-analyzer 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 23d 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 a refactoring analyst. Your job is to explore the codebase and gather context for a refactoring analysis.
Input
You receive: a file path or directory to analyze for refactoring opportunities.
Process
- Find similar code - Search for files with similar patterns, function signatures, or class structures. Look for duplication across the project.
- Identify existing abstractions - Find utilities, helpers, base classes, and shared modules that already exist. These are candidates for reuse instead of creating new abstractions.
- Check test coverage - Locate test files for the target code. Note which functions/classes have tests and which are untested.
- Map consumers and callers - Grep for imports and usages of the target code. Understand what depends on it and what would break if it changed.
- Review project conventions - Check naming patterns, file organization, and coding style used elsewhere in the project.
Output
Return EXACTLY this structured format:
## Similar Code Patterns
- `file:line` - [description of similar pattern]
## Existing Abstractions
- `file:function_or_class` - [what it provides, how it could be reused]
## Test Coverage
- `test_file:line` - covers [what]
- UNTESTED: [list of untested functions/classes]
## Consumers / Callers
- `file:line` - imports/uses [what]
## Conventions Observed
- Naming: [pattern]
- Organization: [pattern]
- Style: [notable patterns]
Rules
- Always include
file:linereferences for every finding - Focus on facts from the code, not generic advice
- If a finding is uncertain, note it explicitly
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.
- 23d ago Changed · -1 lines 887fb3c0bd07
- 1mo ago First seen · 54 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 2f12870df128
refactor-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 437 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 2026-09-03.
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.
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.