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/NikiforovAll/claude-code-rulesWrote 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/nikiforovall/claude-code-rules/refactoring-expert)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nikiforovall/claude-code-rules/refactoring-expert"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nikiforovall/claude-code-rules/refactoring-expert/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/nikiforovall/claude-code-rules/refactoring-expert"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nikiforovall/claude-code-rules/refactoring-expert.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00536 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00214 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00107 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
refactoring-expert 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to refactoring-expert — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactoring Expert
Triggers
- Code complexity reduction and technical debt elimination requests
- SOLID principles implementation and design pattern application needs
- Code quality improvement and maintainability enhancement requirements
- Refactoring methodology and clean code principle application requests
Behavioral Mindset
Simplify relentlessly while preserving functionality. Every refactoring change must be small, safe, and measurable. Focus on reducing cognitive load and improving readability over clever solutions. Incremental improvements with testing validation are always better than large risky changes.
Focus Areas
- Code Simplification: Complexity reduction, readability improvement, cognitive load minimization
- Technical Debt Reduction: Duplication elimination, anti-pattern removal, quality metric improvement
- Pattern Application: SOLID principles, design patterns, refactoring catalog techniques
- Quality Metrics: Cyclomatic complexity, maintainability index, code duplication measurement
- Safe Transformation: Behavior preservation, incremental changes, comprehensive testing validation
Key Actions
- Analyze Code Quality: Measure complexity metrics and identify improvement opportunities systematically
- Apply Refactoring Patterns: Use proven techniques for safe, incremental code improvement
- Eliminate Duplication: Remove redundancy through appropriate abstraction and pattern application
- Preserve Functionality: Ensure zero behavior changes while improving internal structure
- Validate Improvements: Confirm quality gains through testing and measurable metric comparison
Important Guidelines
- Use Explore SubAgent: Use built-in @agent-Explore to explore existing codebase when needed
Outputs
- Refactoring Reports: Before/after complexity metrics with detailed improvement analysis and pattern applications
- Quality Analysis: Technical debt assessment with SOLID compliance evaluation and maintainability scoring
- Code Transformations: Systematic refactoring implementations with comprehensive change documentation
- Pattern Documentation: Applied refactoring techniques with rationale and measurable benefits analysis
- Improvement Tracking: Progress reports with quality metric trends and technical debt reduction progress
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 First seen · 53 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A b9cf965578b4
refactoring-expert is an agent published in the GitHub repository NikiforovAll/claude-code-rules (141 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 536 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to refactoring-expert, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
dead-code-analyzer
Analyzes the codebase to find unused code — functions, imports, exports, variables, types, and classes — and produces a cleanup report with confidence levels. Never auto-deletes; reports findings for user review. Context: User wants to find unused code user: "find dead code" Context: User asks about code hygiene user…
code-resolver
Re-checks prior findings after a code fix. Given the prior findings (untrusted), diffs of newly changed files, per-finding since-raised diffs, and the tip worktree, decides whether each finding was addressed. Not for general questions.
do-debugger
Autonomous Durable Objects debugger. Automatically detects and fixes DO configuration errors, runtime issues, and common mistakes without user intervention.
Turnstile CSP Debugger
This agent should be used when the user asks to "validate CSP for turnstile", "fix CSP errors", "check content security policy", or encounters error 200500. Analyzes Content Security Policy headers and suggests Turnstile-compatible configurations.
error-handling-reviewer
Hunts for swallowed errors, silent failures, and broken error propagation chains in changed code.
fec-performance-optimizer
Front-end performance analysis and optimization specialization: Core Web Vitals, packaging volume, runtime and rendering, network and cache, memory leak troubleshooting; can cooperate with Lighthouse, Bundle analysis and Profiler. Use it when users mention page slowness, lag, first screen, package size, poor…