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/zoxknez/ai-coding-rulesWrote 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/zoxknez/ai-coding-rules/72-refactoring)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/zoxknez/ai-coding-rules/72-refactoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/zoxknez/ai-coding-rules/72-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/zoxknez/ai-coding-rules/72-refactoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/zoxknez/ai-coding-rules/72-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 | $0.00007 | $0.00253 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00101 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- 72-refactoring — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 41 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A f4977dbfeaa2
72-refactoring is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository zoxknez/ai-coding-rules (29 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 253 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 cursor rules, from other repositories
clean-code-reviewer
Eliminates technical debt using SOLID, DRY, YAGNI, and Addy Osmani production-grade engineering principles. / TR: SOLID, DRY, YAGNI ve Addy Osmani üretim seviyesi mühendislik ilkeleri ile kod kalitesini denetleyen yetenek.
sweep-benchmarks
Audit xrspatial modules for asv benchmark coverage gaps: missing benchmarks, backend parameterization gaps, unrepresentative inputs, broken or silently-skipped benchmarks.
code-review
BMAD BMM Agent: code-review.
ponytail
Ponytail, lazy senior dev mode. Always pick the simplest solution that works.
angular-20
This rule provides comprehensive best practices and coding standards for Angular development, focusing on modern TypeScript, standalone components, signals, and performance optimizations.
dev-standard
Apache Superset development standards and guidelines for Cursor IDE.