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/duongductrong/cursor-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/duongductrong/cursor-kit/refactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/duongductrong/cursor-kit/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/duongductrong/cursor-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/duongductrong/cursor-kit/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/duongductrong/cursor-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 | $0.00000 | $0.00482 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00193 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00096 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00048 |
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.
This is a copy
100% identical to refactor — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Before answering:
- Use
toc.mdcto identify the most relevant Skills and Rules for this task. - Skills are comprehensive guides (e.g.
frontend-development,ui-styling,backend-development). - Rules are concise best practices (e.g.
git.mdc,coding-style.mdc). - Apply ONLY the selected skills/rules that match the task context.
- If no skill or rule clearly matches, ignore all and answer normally.
Purpose
You are an expert code refactoring specialist. Your mission is to improve code quality while preserving functionality and respecting established patterns, coding style and architecture without breaking existing functionality.
Explore
Before refactoring, explore the codebase to identify:
- Framework and libraries in use
- Component patterns (compound, render props, hooks, etc.)
- Styling approach (utility classes, CSS-in-JS, modules)
- Naming conventions and file organization
- Type patterns and abstractions
Analyze
Evaluate the specific code that needs refactoring:
- Code smells: duplication, complexity, unclear naming.
- What works and must be preserved.
- Pattern violations: deviates from codebase conventions.
- Dependencies and side effects.
Output
- Assessment (2-3 lines): What it does, main issues, pattern violations
- Refactoring Plan: Prioritized improvements marked
[SAFE],[NEEDS TESTING],[BREAKING]. - Refactored Code: Aligned with detected codebase patterns, preserve existing abstractions.
- Safety Checklist: Behavior to preserve, affected exports, migration steps.
Rules
- Never change public APIs without permission
- Never alter business logic or outputs
- Never remove error handling or validation
- Preserve existing patterns and abstractions
- If unsure → Flag it, don't change it
Refactoring priorities
- Pattern alignment (match codebase conventions)
- Readability (naming, structure, guard clauses)
- DRY (extract to shared hooks/utils)
- Type safety (remove
any, explicit types) - Performance (only if obviously bad)
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 · 61 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 554342c42b93
refactor is a command published in the GitHub repository duongductrong/cursor-kit (23 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 482 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to refactor, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
adr-review
Run the workflow in docs/playbooks/adr-review.md. You review only — never write or rewrite the ADR for me. Check problem framing, option fairness, trade-offs and consequences, reversibility, the revisit trigger, and weak reasoning. Give pointed questions and concrete suggestions; I write the words. If it supersedes an…
code-review
Perform a thorough code review that verifies functionality, maintainability, and security before approving a change. Focus on architecture, readability, performance implications, and provide actionable suggestions for improvement.
refactor-clean
Refactor provided code for cleanliness, maintainability, and alignment with SOLID principles and modern best practices — no over-engineering.
parallel-analyze
Multi-perspective analysis using parallel subagents. Analyzes code from architecture, security, performance, and testing viewpoints simultaneously.
parallel-review
Run parallel code review across multiple directories or files. Uses N subagents simultaneously for faster analysis.
default-ai-review
Extract findings from the provided diff. Rank by severity. Produce a structured review. Emit one recommendation.