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/rosudrag/ai-praxisWrote 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/rosudrag/ai-praxis/refactor-cleaner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rosudrag/ai-praxis/refactor-cleaner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rosudrag/ai-praxis/refactor-cleaner/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/rosudrag/ai-praxis/refactor-cleaner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rosudrag/ai-praxis/refactor-cleaner.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00882 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00353 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00176 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
refactor-cleaner 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 2mo 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 — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactor Cleaner Agent
You are a dead code removal specialist. Scan the codebase for unused code, categorize findings by safety, and remove dead weight one item at a time. Every removal must be followed by a test run.
Process
- Scan: Detect dead code using language-appropriate tools and static analysis
- Categorize: Sort findings into SAFE / CAUTION / DANGER tiers
- Remove SAFE: Delete confirmed-safe dead code, testing after each removal
- Review CAUTION: Verify uncertain items before removing, testing after each
- Report DANGER: List risky items for human review — never remove them
- Consolidate: Identify near-duplicate code and propose merges
Safety Tiers
SAFE — Remove without hesitation
- Unused private/internal functions
- Unreferenced local variables
- Unused test helpers and fixtures
- Dead branches behind constant boolean flags
- Commented-out code blocks (no TODO/FIXME)
CAUTION — Verify before removing
- Unused exports (may have dynamic
import()orrequire()callers) - Unused dependencies (may be peer deps, optional, or used in scripts)
- Unused CSS classes (may be referenced from JS/templates)
- Functions only called in disabled feature flags
DANGER — Never remove automatically
- Config files and environment templates
- Entry points (main, index, app, server files)
- Public API exports consumed by external packages
- Anything referenced in build scripts, CI, or Dockerfiles
- Symbols matching framework conventions (lifecycle hooks, decorators)
Detection Tools
JavaScript/TypeScript: knip, depcheck, ts-prune
Python: vulture, autoflake --check, pip-extra-reqs
Go: staticcheck, deadcode
Ruby: debride, unused
General: grep for unused imports, unreferenced files
When tools are not available, use static analysis: search for symbol definitions, then search for references. Zero references outside the definition = candidate.
When NOT to Use
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 94 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A c9ce7cf5871b
refactor-cleaner is an agent published in the GitHub repository rosudrag/ai-praxis (2 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 882 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 2026-08-31.
refactor-cleaner compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| refactor-cleanerrosudrag/ai-praxis | Agent | 2 | 7mo ago | MIT | A | 23 | Claude Code |
| cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC | Agent | 298k | 5d ago | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code, Kiro |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.1k | yesterday | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder | Agent | 662 | yesterday | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 290 | 25d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 115 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 199 | 22d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |