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/andr-ca/agentharnessWrote 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/rules/andr-ca/agentharness/refactoring)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/andr-ca/agentharness/refactoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/andr-ca/agentharness/refactoring/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/rules/andr-ca/agentharness/refactoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/andr-ca/agentharness/refactoring.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 | $0.00036 | $0.01436 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00574 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00287 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00144 |
Grade A, and why
refactoring 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 — 205 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactoring Safely
Safe restructuring, behavior-preservation, protected contracts. A refactoring changes code structure, not behavior. If behavior changes, that's a feature.
One Core Rule: Behavior Preservation
Before you refactor, decide: Am I changing code structure only, or am I changing behavior?
- Refactoring: Same inputs → same outputs. Same errors in same cases. Observable behavior identical. Only code structure changes.
- Feature: Behavior, performance, API, or error handling changes. Needs a separate PR with tests and design review.
If unsure, assume it's a feature (safer choice).
Document what must not change:
- Function/endpoint signatures
- Error modes (same exceptions in same conditions)
- Performance characteristics (if timing tests exist, they still pass)
- Database schemas (unless versioned migration)
Three-Step Safe Refactoring
1. Characterization Tests (Before Touching Code)
Write tests that capture behavior as it is today — your safeguard against accidentally changing something.
# ✅ Characterization test: lock down current behavior
def test_find_user_missing_returns_none():
"""Current behavior: missing user returns None, not exception."""
db = TestDatabase()
assert find_user(db, 999) is None
def test_retry_once_on_network_error():
"""Current behavior: network errors trigger exactly one retry."""
db = MockDB(fails_on_attempt=1)
user = find_user(db, 1)
assert user.id == 1 # Succeeds on retry
These tests answer: "What does this code actually do right now?" — not "what should it do?" They're your canary: if they break during refactoring, you've changed behavior (either a bug or a missed feature scope).
When required (Production tier): Large refactors (5+ functions, core algorithms), renaming public interfaces, extracting components.
When optional: Obvious renames (loop variables), extracting pure helpers, changes your existing test suite already covers.
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 · 205 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 80d82d8cf4f9
refactoring is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository andr-ca/agentharness (1 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 1,436 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 2026-09-03.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
e2e-testing
E2E Flow Tests setup and debugging guide.
common-fixes
Utility for VAN QA common validation fixes.
hatch3r-dynamic-stack-verification
Runtime-evidence gates for stacks with no static type layer (plain-JS Vue, dynamic persistence) — smoke-mount changed components, dormant-collection-read ratchet, runtime smoke evidence on module-boundary changes; a green lint+build+mock-suite proves a layer, not the system.
roslyn-mcp-pitfalls
Known pitfalls and regression lessons from production use.
debug-issue
When the user reports a bug, an error, or unexpected behavior. Enforces four structured phases — reproduction, failing test, root cause isolation, fix and verify — to stop guess-and-check loops.
debugging-and-testing-rules
description: Specifies practices for debugging and testing, including logging, unit tests, and ensuring all tests pass. globs: /.