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/FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-pluginsWrote 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/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/refactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/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/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/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 | $0.00013 | $0.01332 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00533 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00266 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00133 |
Grade A, and why
refactor scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 216 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SOLID Refactoring Assistant
Analyze code for SOLID violations and suggest targeted improvements.
Purpose
Identify refactoring opportunities based on:
- SOLID principle violations
- Code smells and anti-patterns
- Complexity metrics
- Duplication detection
Instructions
Step 1: Scope Analysis
Determine the refactoring scope from user input:
- Single file: Deep analysis
- Directory: Pattern detection across files
- Function/class: Focused extraction suggestions
# Get file/directory stats
if [ -f "$TARGET" ]; then
wc -l "$TARGET"
echo "Single file analysis"
elif [ -d "$TARGET" ]; then
find "$TARGET" -type f \( -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.js" -o -name "*.py" \) | wc -l
echo "Directory analysis"
fi
Step 2: SOLID Violations Detection
S - Single Responsibility
Look for:
- Files > 300 lines
- Functions > 50 lines
- Classes with > 10 methods
- Mixed concerns (data + UI + business logic)
# Find large files
find . -name "*.{ts,js,py}" -exec wc -l {} + 2>/dev/null | sort -rn | head -10
# Functions with high line count (approximate)
grep -rn "function\|def \|fn " --include="*.{ts,js,py,rs}" . | head -20
O - Open/Closed Principle
Look for:
- Switch/case statements on types
- Repeated if/else type checking
- Direct modifications vs extensions
L - Liskov Substitution
Look for:
- Overridden methods that throw "not implemented"
- Type checks before method calls
- Empty method overrides
I - Interface Segregation
Look for:
- Large interfaces (> 10 methods)
- Classes implementing unused interface methods
- Fat service classes
D - Dependency Inversion
Look for:
- Direct instantiation of dependencies (
new Service()) - Hardcoded class references
- Missing dependency injection
Step 3: Code Smells
# Duplication patterns
grep -rn --include="*.{ts,js,py}" . 2>/dev/null | \
awk -F: '{print $3}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -10
# Long parameter lists (> 4 params)
grep -rn "function.*,.*,.*,.*," --include="*.{ts,js}" . 2>/dev/null | head -10
# Deep nesting (4+ levels)
grep -rn "^\s\{16,\}" --include="*.{ts,js,py}" . 2>/dev/null | head -10
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 · 216 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 2a56e6620c11
refactor is a command published in the GitHub repository FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-plugins (42 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 1,332 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
review
Deep code review command. Comprehensive code analysis across security, performance, and architecture.
debt-map
Technical debt mapping command. Systematically detects and prioritizes technical debt in the codebase.
spec-check
Specification conformance command. Audits the current code against SPECIFICATION.md, detecting feature gaps and scope drift.
ai-review
AI code review of the staged git diff via the Claude API.
qa
QA sign-off command. Verifies a change against acceptance criteria, runs the test suite, probes edge cases, and issues a ship / no-ship verdict via the qa-lead agent.
assemble-team
Assemble a pre-built agent team for parallel work - review, feature, debug, cross-platform, full-stack, or research.