continue-framework: Agent for Claude Code

.claude/agents/refactor-agent.md

refactor-agent is an agent for Claude Code from rakovi4/continue-framework. It costs 20 tokens per session (1,476 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

An agent workflow for applying code refactorings one at a time. Refactoring means changing code structure without changing its intended behavior.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to process findings from refactoring detectors, prioritising large class or file splits before smaller method and local-code changes.
Why use it?
It limits cascading changes by rescanning and running tests after each refactoring, making it easier to catch problems caused by earlier edits.

Agent for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: installed under .claude/.

This is rakovi4/continue-framework's own configuration. It tells Claude Code how to work on continue-framework itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything continue-framework configures →

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to rakovi4/continue-framework. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rakovi4/continue-framework/main/.claude/agents/refactor-agent.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rakovi4/continue-framework

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for refactor-agent

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rakovi4/continue-framework/refactor-agent/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/rakovi4/continue-framework/refactor-agent)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rakovi4/continue-framework/refactor-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rakovi4/continue-framework/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for refactor-agent

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rakovi4/continue-framework/refactor-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rakovi4/continue-framework/refactor-agent.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 20 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,476 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00020 $0.01476
Opus 5.5 $0.00008 $0.00590
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00004 $0.00295
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00148

Measured 1mo ago against content hash d6b92d1077c1, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

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 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.

.claude/agents/refactor-agent.md · 116 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Refactor Agent — Scope Inspection and Fixes

One refactoring at a time. Run tests after each change. Re-scan cascades.

Purpose

Use .claude/templates/workflow/quality-execution.md. Default to a complete scope pass across M/D/T in scan-checklist.md, independent of the source author. The coordinator may instead supply partitioned or cluster findings. Never nest a fan-out. Modes are scan-and-fix, inspect, and fix:

  • scan-and-fix: inspect every applicable check, then apply fixes within ownership.
  • inspect: read-only checklist execution; return input revisions, context, and candidates without edits or a completed-refactor claim. Coverage may run beside it.
  • fix: validate retained inspection inputs and approved reuse; rescan invalidated checks before applying candidates. Write only after the coordinator's explicit grant and required preceding publication, even when this worker did the inspection.

Run cross-scope checks assigned by the coordinator with read-only sibling context. Refactoring remains one change at a time within each writable scope; independent scopes may run concurrently. Required verification depends on phase: stable expected RED checks for test refactoring, passing affected checks after GREEN. A disabled suite with no executed cases is not evidence. Follow quality-execution.md when production is still being written.

Workflow

  1. Inspect or gather. Without retained findings, load scan-checklist.md and execute all M/D/T checks for the owned scope. Account for validated reused checks explicitly. With findings, read the merged candidate list. If it arrived undeduped, deduplicate by cluster/check ID plus source range, preserving distinct findings at the same location. Require the role applicability record and every detector KEEP decision under restraint.md; reject syntax-only skips and unsupported exemptions. Require B13's directory inventory and boundary verdicts from scan-design.md alongside the candidates. If absent, perform that check inline before accepting an empty list; this also applies to a scope pass without detectors. In inspect mode, return here with the complete check results and candidate table; do not apply fixes.
  2. Order the list: resolve formatting (A60) and remeasure A0/A1 first, then highest-impact first: class/file splits (A0) before method extractions (A1) before local/expression cleanups — so cascades resolve downward and you don't refactor code you are about to delete.
  3. Apply ONE refactoring. Pick the top candidate, load its template from the Code Smells Routing Table in .claude/templates/refactoring/code-smells-routing-table.md, and follow the template steps. Apply the restraint guardrails in .claude/templates/refactoring/restraint.md first — skip the candidate if a "NO ACTION" verdict is correct.
  4. Verify formatting and size — apply Source Formatting in the coding rules, then wc -l on every changed file (code, stylesheet, config). If any exceeds 200 formatted lines, split further now. Recheck A60 after every extraction; formatting fixes cannot be waived under extraction restraint.
  5. Run affected checks for the module against stable inputs, preserving the expected RED or GREEN outcome for the phase. Record failures, not skipped cases.
  6. Re-scan cascades — re-run the checks affected by this change (param removal A55 → re-check locals A8 + repeated expressions A7; method extraction → re-check A1; class split → re-check A0). Add any new candidate to the list. Reassess retained candidates in changed functions and interactions between checks: control-flow edits affect size/nesting/locals; extraction affects ownership, duplication, and dependencies. This targeted re-scan is inline — do NOT re-dispatch the detectors.
  7. Repeat from step 2 until the list is empty AND the cascade re-scan is clean, with every finding resolved or supported by current KEEP evidence. Then run final affected checks. For staged lanes, return the checked revisions to the coordinator, which owes the combined build at the stage join; standalone refactors run their full build here. Report ownership-blocked violations explicitly; they cannot establish completion. Inspection and fix reports reference shared inventories and enumerations under quality-execution.md instead of copying them.

Read the full file on GitHub · 116 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago Changed · +22 lines · -1 tokens per session d6b92d1077c1
  2. 1mo ago Changed · +6 lines e14fa3427d31
  3. 1mo ago Changed b00a26b7be28
  4. 2mo ago First seen · 88 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A edc71a67a6e1

Subscribe to this mod's changes

refactor-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository rakovi4/continue-framework (54 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,476 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.

Related

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.

affaan-m/ECC · 41 tokens

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.

michael-denyer/pstack-claude · 68 tokens

review-obsidian-guidelines

Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.

uphy/obsidian-reminder · 63 tokens

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.

opensesh/KARIMO · 49 tokens

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…

genkovich/sdd · 81 tokens

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…

damusix/atomic-claude · 169 tokens