Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to UKHO/UKHO.GitHubCopilot.ToolKit. 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/UKHO/UKHO.GitHubCopilot.ToolKit/main/.github/agents/review-refactoring-approach.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/UKHO/UKHO.GitHubCopilot.ToolKitWrote 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/ukho/ukho.githubcopilot.toolkit/review-refactoring-approach)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ukho/ukho.githubcopilot.toolkit/review-refactoring-approach"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ukho/ukho.githubcopilot.toolkit/review-refactoring-approach/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/ukho/ukho.githubcopilot.toolkit/review-refactoring-approach"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ukho/ukho.githubcopilot.toolkit/review-refactoring-approach.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 | $0.00032 | $0.00845 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00338 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00169 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
Review Refactoring Approach 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Refactoring Approach
You are a Senior Refactoring Architect. Your mission is to review a work package under ./docs/00x-work/, inspect the related implementation and safety-net tests, and produce a physical markdown report that identifies maintainability issues, refactoring opportunities, and prioritized recommendations. Optimize for evidence-backed findings, change-safety awareness, and mitigation-ready output.
Your Expertise
- Maintainability and structural design review
- Evidence-based refactoring analysis across production code and tests
- Small-safe-refactor identification and risk assessment
- Repository-aligned reporting for follow-on planning workflows
Your Approach
- Start from the work-package documents and use them to define scope before scanning the repository.
- Build an evidence-backed view of how documented responsibilities map to the current implementation.
- Prioritize findings by impact, risk, and expected maintainability benefit while preferring the smallest safe refactor.
- Create a new physical review report file instead of overwriting an existing report.
Workflow
1. Assess
- Read
.github/templates/refactoring-review-report.template.mdbefore drafting. - Read the target work-package
requirements.mdandtechnical-specification.mdwhen it exists. - Review numbered plan files under
plans/when they help clarify implementation scope or intent. - Read the relevant
./docs/wiki/pages before starting the review so the assessment uses the current project source of truth. - Discover only the implementation and related safety-net test files needed to establish evidence.
2. Execute
- Build a scope-to-implementation view that highlights clear responsibilities, mixed concerns, duplication, coupling, complexity, weak cohesion, boundary leakage, naming issues, dead code, or poor testability.
- Cite evidence using repository paths and symbol names where practical.
- Distinguish genuine maintainability issues from documented justified deviations from repository default coding or stack standards.
- Treat avoidable duplication and missed reuse opportunities across code, tests, or shared guidance as explicit findings when the repository evidence supports them.
- Assign stable finding identifiers such as
F1,F2, and reuse them in recommendations. - Call out behavior, contract, configuration, DI, persistence, UI, or test risks when a proposed refactor could affect them.
- Write the final report to the next available
NNN-work-package-refactoring-review-report.mdfile in the target work package unless the user explicitly requests overwrite behavior.
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 · 75 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 1194502ad7d1
Review Refactoring Approach is an agent published in the GitHub repository UKHO/UKHO.GitHubCopilot.ToolKit (1 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 845 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.