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.
npx agentmods add rules/luxvil/ai-coding-rules/72-refactoringgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Luxvil/ai-coding-rulesWhat 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 | $0.00007 | $0.00253 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00127 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00051 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
72-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 yesterday.
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 72-refactoring — 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.
What it actually says
Refactoring Rules
Pre-Refactor Checklist
- Tests exist for current behavior
- All tests are passing
- You understand the code's purpose
- Changes are approved (if >200 LOC)
Principles
- Make it work → Make it right → Make it fast
- One refactor type per commit
- Keep behavior unchanged (unless fixing bugs)
- Run tests after each step
Common Refactors
- Extract Function - Split large functions
- Rename - Clarify intent
- Extract Variable - Explain complex expressions
- Inline - Remove unnecessary indirection
- Move - Better file organization
Anti-Patterns to Fix
- Magic numbers → Named constants
- Nested conditionals → Early returns
- Long functions → Extract helpers
- Duplicate code → DRY it up
- God objects → Single responsibility
When NOT to Refactor
- Under time pressure (unless blocking)
- Without tests
- Without understanding the code
- When it's "good enough"
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.
- yesterday First seen · 41 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A f4977dbfeaa2
72-refactoring is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository Luxvil/ai-coding-rules (3 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 253 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to 72-refactoring, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
exam-answer-format
Guidelines for writing exam-style answers in a practical, conversational style with definitions first followed by real-world examples.
lecture-reference-linking
Guidelines for including course materials lists and inline references when writing exam answers or documentation that references course materials.
short-answer-version
Guidelines for creating short/concise versions of detailed answers.
documentation-formatting
Guidelines for formatting markdown documentation to improve readability and scannability.
mermaid-diagrams
Guidelines for adding Mermaid diagrams to exam answers and documentation with automatic SVG generation support.
human-writing-style
Rules for writing naturally and authentically - avoid robotic AI tone in documentation, code comments, error messages, and explanations. Write like a human colleague, not a customer service bot.