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.
npx agentmods add commands/bienhoang/refactoring-kit/refactorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bienhoang/refactoring-kitWhat 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 | $0.00017 | $0.00697 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00349 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00139 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
refactor 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 yesterday.
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 — 59 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Analyze target and route to the best refactoring command: $ARGUMENTS
Decision Tree
0. Empty arguments:
- If
$ARGUMENTSis empty → UseAskUserQuestion:- "What would you like to refactor? Provide a file path, directory, or description."
1. Check for review intent:
- If
$ARGUMENTScontains action keywords: "review", "analyze", "audit", "scan", "assess", "inspect", "report" as standalone words (not inside file paths) - Or if
$ARGUMENTSstarts with--review→/refactor:review <target>(strip the keyword, pass remaining as target) - Note: If target is a
.mdplan file AND contains a review keyword (e.g., "review my plan.md"), prefer plan routing (Step 2) — the user likely wants to execute the plan, not review it
1.5. Check for architecture intent:
- If
$ARGUMENTScontains architecture keywords: "architecture", "architectural", "arch-review", "style detection", "boundary analysis", "layer violations" as standalone words (not inside file paths) - Or if
$ARGUMENTSstarts with--architectureor--arch→/refactor:architecture <target>(strip the keyword, pass remaining as target)
2. Check for existing plan:
- If
$ARGUMENTSis a path to a.mdplan file →/refactor:implement <path> - If active refactoring plan exists in
./plans/matching "refactor" →/refactor:implement
3. Route by scope:
A) Single File (target is a file path like src/utils.ts, lib/helpers.js)
→ /refactor:fast <target>
B) Small Scope (target mentions specific function, class, or method)
→ /refactor:fast <target>
C) Multi-file list or glob patterns (e.g., src/*.ts, file1.js file2.js)
→ /refactor:plan <target>
D) Directory / Module (target is a directory like src/services/, lib/)
→ /refactor:plan <target>
E) Large Scope (keywords: system, module, large, entire, whole, codebase)
→ /refactor:plan <target>
F) Ambiguous (cannot determine scope from arguments)
→ Use AskUserQuestion with options:
- "/refactor:review — Read-only analysis report"
- "/refactor:architecture — Architectural style & smell analysis"
- "/refactor:fast — Quick autonomous refactoring"
- "/refactor:plan — Brainstorm & plan first"
- "/refactor:implement — Execute with review-then-apply"
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.
- yesterday First seen · 59 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 78d1da30ba9b
refactor is a command published in the GitHub repository bienhoang/refactoring-kit (4 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 697 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.