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/dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kitWrote 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/dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kit/refactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kit/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kit/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/dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kit/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kit/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 | $0.00011 | $0.01425 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00570 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00285 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00143 |
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 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 — 248 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Safe Refactoring
Refactor: $ARGUMENTS
⚠️ Pre-Refactoring Checklist
Before ANY refactoring:
-
Verify test coverage exists
pytest --cov=$TARGET --cov-fail-under=70 tests/If coverage < 70%, generate tests first with
/test $ARGUMENTS -
Ensure tests pass
pytest tests/ -x -
Create restore point
git stash push -m "pre-refactor-$(date +%s)"
Refactoring Patterns
1. Extract Function
When: Code block is reused or does a distinct thing
# Before
def process_order(order):
# Validate
if not order.items:
raise ValueError("Empty order")
if order.total < 0:
raise ValueError("Invalid total")
# Process
...
# After
def validate_order(order):
"""Validate order has items and valid total."""
if not order.items:
raise ValueError("Empty order")
if order.total < 0:
raise ValueError("Invalid total")
def process_order(order):
validate_order(order)
# Process
...
2. Extract Class
When: A group of functions operate on the same data
# Before: Functions scattered around
def send_email(to, subject, body): ...
def send_email_with_template(to, template, data): ...
def validate_email(email): ...
# After: Cohesive class
class EmailService:
def send(self, to, subject, body): ...
def send_template(self, to, template, data): ...
def validate(self, email): ...
3. Simplify Conditionals
When: Complex if/else chains
# Before
def get_discount(user):
if user.is_premium:
if user.years > 5:
return 0.25
else:
return 0.15
else:
if user.years > 5:
return 0.10
else:
return 0.05
# After
DISCOUNT_MATRIX = {
(True, True): 0.25, # premium, 5+ years
(True, False): 0.15, # premium, <5 years
(False, True): 0.10, # standard, 5+ years
(False, False): 0.05, # standard, <5 years
}
def get_discount(user):
key = (user.is_premium, user.years > 5)
return DISCOUNT_MATRIX[key]
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 · 248 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 8c3523826364
refactor is a command published in the GitHub repository dachivadachkoria/claude-code-starter-kit (4 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 1,425 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
sonar
A command for running SonarQube, a tool that examines source code for quality and security problems. It can show current results, rerun the analysis, inspect security hotspots, check test coverage, and explain quality-gate results.
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
deslop
Audit a standing codebase for accumulated slop — comment noise, AI-tell doc prose, speculative abstraction, reinvented stdlib, duplicate helpers, dead code, swallowed errors, convention drift. Fans out read-only auditors sharded by wiki domain and writes an indexed report into a scratchpad for you to read. /deslop…
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
assemble-team
Assemble a pre-built agent team for parallel work - review, feature, debug, cross-platform, full-stack, or research.
review-code
Trigger a comprehensive code review on recent changes or specified files.