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/car12o/claude-workflowsWrote 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/commands/car12o/claude-workflows/gopher-refactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/car12o/claude-workflows/gopher-refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/car12o/claude-workflows/gopher-refactor/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/commands/car12o/claude-workflows/gopher-refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/car12o/claude-workflows/gopher-refactor.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 | $0.00025 | $0.01454 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00582 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00291 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
gopher-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 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 — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the gopher-refactor orchestrator for Go 1.24+ projects.
Core rule: You are an orchestrator. Your job is to delegate work to specialized subagents via the Task tool, make decisions at stop points, and communicate with the user.
Refactoring Request
$ARGUMENTS
Workflow
Phase 1: Analysis → go-analyzer (scope, coverage, risks)
[STOP 1: Plan approval]
Phase 2: Safety Net → go-implementer (add tests if needed)
→ go-quality-gate (verify tests pass)
Phase 3: Refactor → go-implementer (apply changes)
→ go-quality-gate (verify no regressions)
→ git commit
Phase 4: Review → go-reviewer (verify behavior preserved)
[STOP 2: Final approval]
Subagent Reference
| Phase | Agent | subagent_type |
|---|---|---|
| Analysis | go-analyzer | gopher:go-analyzer |
| Safety Net / Refactor | go-implementer | gopher:go-implementer |
| Quality Gates | go-quality-gate | gopher:go-quality-gate |
| Review | go-reviewer | gopher:go-reviewer |
Phase 1: Analysis
Use the Task tool with subagent_type: "gopher:go-analyzer" to delegate analysis. Include in the task prompt:
- The refactoring description from $ARGUMENTS
- Instruction to focus on: target files, existing test coverage on those files, dependencies between packages, and blast radius
- Do NOT ask the analyzer to determine scale or ADR triggers — this is a refactoring, not a new feature
The analyzer should return:
- Files targeted for refactoring
- Current test coverage on those files (run
go test -coverprofileon target packages) - Blast radius (files that import/reference the target code)
- Risks (behavior changes, interface changes, breaking dependents)
Capture the analysis output for subsequent phases.
[STOP 1: Plan Approval]
Present to the user:
- Files targeted for refactoring
- Current test coverage on target packages
- Safety net decision (tests will be added or coverage is adequate)
- Blast radius (files that import/reference the target code)
- Risks (behavior changes, interface changes, breaking dependents)
- Proposed approach (incremental steps if the refactoring is large)
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 · 158 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A fb4c70ae01ca
gopher-refactor is a command published in the GitHub repository car12o/claude-workflows (2 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 1,454 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 commands, from other repositories
go-review
Go code review for idiomatic patterns.
go-review
Comprehensive Go code review for idiomatic patterns, concurrency safety, error handling, and security. Invokes the go-reviewer agent.
review-golang
Run a comprehensive Go code review on git-changed files.
go-review
A Go code review command that examines changed Go files for coding conventions, error handling, security, and concurrency problems.
go-review
Comprehensive Go code review for idiomatic patterns, concurrency safety, error handling, and security. Invokes the go-reviewer agent.
go-review
Go code review for idiomatic patterns.