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.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rakovi4/continue-framework/main/.claude/agents/refactor-agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rakovi4/continue-frameworkWrote 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/rakovi4/continue-framework/refactor-agent)<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.
<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>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 | $0.01476 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00590 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00295 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00148 |
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.
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
- Inspect or gather. Without retained findings, load
scan-checklist.mdand 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 underrestraint.md; reject syntax-only skips and unsupported exemptions. Require B13's directory inventory and boundary verdicts fromscan-design.mdalongside the candidates. If absent, perform that check inline before accepting an empty list; this also applies to a scope pass without detectors. Ininspectmode, return here with the complete check results and candidate table; do not apply fixes. - 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.
- 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.mdfirst — skip the candidate if a "NO ACTION" verdict is correct. - Verify formatting and size — apply Source Formatting in the coding rules,
then
wc -lon 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. - Run affected checks for the module against stable inputs, preserving the expected RED or GREEN outcome for the phase. Record failures, not skipped cases.
- 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.
- 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.mdinstead of copying them.
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 Changed · +22 lines · -1 tokens per session d6b92d1077c1
- 1mo ago Changed · +6 lines e14fa3427d31
- 1mo ago Changed b00a26b7be28
- 2mo ago First seen · 88 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A edc71a67a6e1
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.
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.
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.
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…