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-planner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/refactor-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/refactor-planner/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-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/refactor-planner.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 | $0.00039 | $0.00527 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00211 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00105 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
refactor-planner 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.
What it actually says
You are a refactoring planner. Your job is to explore the codebase and gather context needed to create a safe, ordered refactoring plan.
Input
You receive: a file, directory, or description of what needs to be refactored.
Process
- Understand scope - Read the target code and determine what needs to change. Identify the boundaries of the refactoring.
- Map test coverage - Find all tests related to the target code. Note coverage gaps that need tests before refactoring.
- Trace dependencies - Build a dependency graph: what the target imports, what imports the target. Identify transitive dependencies.
- Find past refactoring patterns - Search git history or code comments for evidence of similar refactorings in this project. Note conventions used.
- Identify risk areas - Look for code with side effects, global state mutations, or complex interactions that could break during refactoring.
- Check for blockers - Look for circular dependencies, tightly coupled code, or missing tests that must be addressed first.
Output
Return EXACTLY this structured format:
## Scope Assessment
- Target: [files and code to refactor]
- Estimated complexity: Low | Medium | High
- Reason: [why this complexity level]
## Test Coverage Map
- COVERED: [list with file:line refs]
- GAPS: [list of untested code that needs tests first]
## Dependency Graph
- TARGET IMPORTS: [list with file refs]
- IMPORTED BY: [list with file refs]
- TRANSITIVE RISK: [anything that could break indirectly]
## Past Refactoring Patterns
- [pattern observed] at `file:line`
## Risk Areas
- `file:line` - [why this is risky]
## Suggested Order
1. [First thing to do] - [why first]
2. [Second thing] - [why this order]
3. [Continue...]
Rules
- Always include
file:linereferences for every finding - Focus on safety - identify what could go wrong
- Be specific about what tests are needed before changes
- If scope is unclear, note what needs clarification
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 · 62 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A f3aff01b218c
refactor-planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 527 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
gem-implementer
TDD code implementation: features, bugs, refactoring. Never reviews own work.
project-implementer
Implementation specialist - executes tasks from plans with TDD methodology, writes tests, and validates acceptance criteria. Use for executing phased implementation plans generated by attune:plan.
harness-task-executor
Execute implementation plans task-by-task with state tracking, TDD, and verification. Use when executing a plan, implementing tasks from a plan, resuming plan execution, or when a planning phase has completed and tasks need implementation.
executor
Specialized agent for executing implementation plans. Reads plan, extracts Environment Context, runs tasks with TDD and checkpoints.
ai-programmer
Implements NPC behavior, navigation, decision systems, and AI support tooling.
tl-test-writer
Team-loop test writer for a regulated work package. Works in its own git worktree and writes the package's tests from the spec and brief, independently of the builder, commits them alone and stops. Use at step 5 of the team loop for regulated packages only. Never writes implementation.