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/spideynolove/claude-dotfilesWrote 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/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/refactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/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/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/refactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/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 | $0.02795 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.01118 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00559 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00280 |
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 — 311 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactor
Performs safe, step-by-step code refactoring with quantitative SOLID principles evaluation. Visualizes technical debt and clarifies improvement priorities.
Usage
# Identify complex code and create refactoring plan
find . -name "*.js" -exec wc -l {} + | sort -rn | head -10
"Refactor large files to reduce complexity"
# Detect and consolidate duplicate code
grep -r "function processUser" . --include="*.js"
"Consolidate duplicate functions using Extract Method"
# Evaluate SOLID principles violations
grep -r "class.*Service" . --include="*.js" | head -10
"Assess whether these classes follow Single Responsibility Principle"
Basic Examples
# Find long methods
grep -A 50 "function" src/*.js | grep -B 50 -A 50 "return" | wc -l
"Split methods over 50 lines using Extract Method"
# Find complex conditions
grep -r "if.*if.*if" . --include="*.js"
"Improve nested conditions using Strategy pattern"
# Find code smells
grep -r "TODO\|FIXME\|HACK" . --exclude-dir=node_modules
"Resolve technical debt in comments"
Refactoring Techniques
Extract Method (Split Big Functions)
// Before: Long method
function processOrder(order) {
// 50 lines of complex processing
}
// After: Separation of responsibilities
function processOrder(order) {
validateOrder(order);
calculateTotal(order);
saveOrder(order);
}
Replace Conditional with Polymorphism (Remove Switch/If Chains)
// Before: switch statement
function getPrice(user) {
switch (user.type) {
case "premium":
return basePrice * 0.8;
case "regular":
return basePrice;
}
}
// After: Strategy pattern
class PremiumPricing {
calculate(basePrice) {
return basePrice * 0.8;
}
}
SOLID Principles Scoring (0-100 points)
Evaluation Criteria and Scoring
S - Single Responsibility (20 points)
├─ Number of responsibilities: 1 (20pts) | 2 (15pts) | 3 (10pts) | 4+ (5pts)
├─ Method count: <7 (+5pts) | 7-15 (+3pts) | >15 (0pts)
├─ Clear reasons for change: Clear (+5pts) | Unclear (0pts)
└─ Example score: UserService (auth + data processing) = 10 points
O - Open/Closed (20 points)
├─ Extension points: Strategy/Template Method (20pts) | Inheritance only (10pts) | None (5pts)
├─ Existing code changes for new features: Not needed (+5pts) | Minimal (+3pts) | Required (0pts)
├─ Interface usage: Appropriate (+5pts) | Partial (+3pts) | None (0pts)
└─ Example score: PaymentProcessor (Strategy) = 20 points
L - Liskov Substitution (20 points)
├─ Derived class contract compliance: Complete (20pts) | Partial (10pts) | Violated (0pts)
├─ Precondition strengthening: None (+5pts) | Present (-5pts)
├─ Postcondition weakening: None (+5pts) | Present (-5pts)
└─ Example score: Square extends Rectangle = 0 points (violated)
I - Interface Segregation (20 points)
├─ Interface size: 1-3 methods (20pts) | 4-7 (15pts) | 8+ (5pts)
├─ Unused method implementations: None (+5pts) | 1-2 (+2pts) | 3+ (0pts)
├─ Role clarity: Single role (+5pts) | Multiple roles (0pts)
└─ Example score: Readable/Writable separation = 20 points
D - Dependency Inversion (20 points)
├─ Dependency direction: Abstractions only (20pts) | Mixed (10pts) | Concretions only (5pts)
├─ DI usage: Constructor Injection (+5pts) | Setter (+3pts) | None (0pts)
├─ Testability: Mockable (+5pts) | Difficult (0pts)
└─ Example score: Repository Pattern = 20 points
Total Score = S + O + L + I + D
├─ 90-100 points: Excellent (SOLID compliant)
├─ 70-89 points: Good (Minor improvements needed)
├─ 50-69 points: Fair (Refactoring recommended)
├─ 30-49 points: Poor (Major improvements required)
└─ 0-29 points: Critical (Design overhaul required)
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 · 311 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 70927ebeb986
refactor is a command published in the GitHub repository spideynolove/claude-dotfiles (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 2,795 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
refactor-clean
Refactor provided code for cleanliness, maintainability, and alignment with SOLID principles and modern best practices — no over-engineering.
deep-audit.skeleton
Description: This section is populated by Bootstrap with manifest data. Required manifest fields: project.description, stack.primary, project.structure, project.subprojects, stack.orm, stack.authmethod Example output.
harness:audit
Cross-dimensional codebase audit orchestrator — classify repo shape, fan out parallel read-only audit agents, dedup and severity-rank findings against existing issues, publish grouped tracking issues.
modify
Command "modify" from MartyBonacci/specswarm, covering user input, flag parsing, parse flags from arguments, mode routing and goal.
prism-graph
Export Prism's graph of this repository and summarise it.
hotfix
Ship a fast branch-based P0 hotfix — diagnose, implement, open a ready-for-review PR, then verify + review after (deferred by design).