oh-my-opencode 2.13.0 → 2.13.1

package/README.ja.md

@@ -189,13 +189,15 @@ Windows から Linux に初めて乗り換えた時のこと、自分の思い
 
 インストールするだけで、エージェントは以下のようなワークフローで働けるようになります：
 
-1. バックグラウンドタスクとして Gemini 3 Pro にフロントエンドを書かせている間に、Claude Opus 4.5 がバックエンドを作成し、デバッグで詰まったら GPT 5.2 に助けを求めます。フロントエンドの実装完了報告が来たら、それを検証して出荷します。
-2. 何か調べる必要があれば、公式ドキュメント、コードベースの全履歴、GitHub に公開されている実装例まで徹底的に調査します。単なる grep だけでなく、内蔵された LSP ツールや AST-Grep まで駆使します。
-3. LLM に仕事を任せる際、コンテキスト管理の心配はもう不要です。私がやります。
-    - OhMyOpenCode は複数のエージェントを積極的に活用し、コンテキストの負荷を軽減します。
-    - **あなたのエージェントは今や開発チームのリードです。あなたは AI マネージャーです。**
-4. 頼んだ仕事が完了するまで止まりません。
-5. このプロジェクトについて深く知りたくない？大丈夫です。ただ 'ultrathink' と入力してください。
+1. Sisyphusは自分自身でファイルを探し回るような時間の無駄はしません。メインエージェントのコンテキストを軽量に保つため、より高速で安価なモデルへ並列でバックグラウンドタスクを飛ばし、自身の代わりに領域の調査を完了させます。
+1. SisyphusはリファクタリングにLSPを活用します。その方が確実で、安全、かつ的確だからです。
+1. UIに関わる重い作業が必要な場合、SisyphusはフロントエンドのタスクをGemini 3 Proに直接デリゲートします。
+1. もしSisyphusがループに陥ったり壁にぶつかったりしても、無駄に悩み続けることはありません。高IQな戦略的バックアップとしてGPT 5.2を呼び出します。
+1. 複雑なオープンソースフレームワークを扱っていますか？Sisyphusはサブエージェントを生成し、生のソースコードやドキュメントをリアルタイムで消化します。彼は完全なコンテキスト認識を持って動作します。
+1. Sisyphusがコメントに触れるとき、その存在意義を証明するか、さもなくば削除します。あなたのコードベースを常にクリーンに保ちます。
+1. Sisyphusは自身のTODOリストに縛られています。もし始めたことを終わらせられなければ、システムは彼を強制的に「bouldering」モードに戻します。あなたのタスクは、何があろうと完了します。
+1. 正直、ドキュメントなんて読む必要はありません。ただプロンプトを書いてください。「ultrawork」というキーワードを含めるだけで十分です。Sisyphusが構造を分析し、コンテキストを集め、外部のソースコードまで掘り下げ、仕事が100%完了するまでboulderingを続けます。
+1. ぶっちゃけ、「ultrawork」と打つのすら面倒ですよね。それなら「ulw」だけでOKです。ただulwと打ち、コーヒーでも飲んでいてください。仕事は終わっています。
 
 このような機能が不要であれば、前述の通り、特定の機能だけを選んで使うことができます。
 

package/README.ko.md

@@ -186,13 +186,15 @@ OpenCode 가 낭만이 사라진것같은 오늘날의 시대에, 당신에게
 
 #### 그저 설치하면 되는 것.
 
-1. 백그라운드 태스크로 Gemini 3 Pro 가 프론트엔드를 작성하게 시켜두는 동안, Claude Opus 4.5 가 백엔드를 작성하고, 디버깅하다 막히면 GPT 5.2 에게 도움을 받습니다. 프론트엔드 구현이 완료되었다고 보고받으면, 이를 다시 확인하고 일하게 만들 수 있습니다.
-2. 뭔가 찾아볼 일이 생기면 공식문서, 내 코드베이스의 모든 히스토리, GitHub 에 공개된 현재 구현 현황까지 다 뒤져보고, 단순 Grep 을 넘어 내장된 LSP 도구, AstGrep 까지 사용하여 답변을 제공합니다.
-3. LLM 에게 일을 맡길때에 큰 컨텍스트에 대한 걱정은 더 이상 하지마세요. 제가 하겠습니다.
-    - OhMyOpenCode 가 여러 에이전트를 적극 활용하도록 하여 컨텍스트 관리에 관한 부담을 줄입니다.
-    - **당신의 에이전트는 이제 개발팀 리드입니다. 당신은 이제 AI Manager 입니다.**
-4. 하기로 약속 한 일을 완수 할 때 까지 멈추지 않습니다.
-5. 이 프로젝트에 자세히 알기 싫다고요? 괜찮습니다. 그냥 'ultrawork' 라고 치세요.
+1. 시지푸스는 직접 파일을 찾아다니며 시간을 낭비하지 않습니다. 메인 에이전트의 컨텍스트를 가볍게 유지하기 위해, 더 빠르고 저렴한 모델들에게 병렬로 백그라운드 태스크를 실행시켜 지형지물을 파악하게 합니다.
+1. 시지푸스는 LSP를 활용해 리팩토링을 수행합니다. 이는 훨씬 더 결정론적이고 안전하며 정교합니다.
+1. UI 작업이 필요한 고난도 태스크를 마주하면, 시지푸스는 프론트엔드 작업을 Gemini 3 Pro에게 직접 위임합니다.
+1. 루프에 갇히거나 한계에 부딪히면 시지푸스는 무의미하게 반복하지 않습니다. High-IQ 전략적 백업을 위해 GPT 5.2를 호출합니다.
+1. 복잡한 오픈소스 프레임워크를 다루시나요? 시지푸스는 서브에이전트들을 생성해 소스 코드와 문서를 실시간으로 파악합니다. 완벽한 컨텍스트 인지를 바탕으로 작동합니다.
+1. 시지푸스는 주석을 건드릴 때 그 존재 이유를 증명하거나, 아니면 그냥 날려버립니다. 당신의 코드베이스를 깨끗하게 유지합니다.
+1. 시지푸스는 본인의 TODO 리스트에 귀속됩니다. 시작한 일을 끝내지 못하면 시스템이 그를 다시 "bouldering" 모드로 강제 소환합니다. 작업은 무조건 완료됩니다.
+1. 솔직히 문서 읽을 필요도 없습니다. 그냥 프롬프트를 작성하세요. 'ultrawork' 키워드를 포함하기만 하면 됩니다. 시지푸스가 구조를 분석하고, 컨텍스트를 수집하고, 외부 소스 코드를 파헤치며 작업이 100% 완료될 때까지 계속 bouldering을 이어갈 것입니다.
+1. 사실 'ultrawork'라고 타이핑하는 것도 일입니다. 그냥 'ulw'라고 치세요. 딱 ulw 세 글자면 됩니다. 그리고 커피나 한잔하세요. 작업은 이미 끝났습니다.
 
 그러나 이러한 작업이 싫다면, 말했듯 특정한 기능만 가져가 사용 할 수 있습니다.
 

package/README.md

@@ -128,8 +128,7 @@ No stupid token consumption massive subagents here. No bloat tools here.
 
 # Oh My OpenCode
 
-oMoMoMoMoMo···
-
+Meet Sisyphus: The Batteries-Included Agent that codes like you.
 
 [Claude Code](https://www.claude.com/product/claude-code) is great.
 But if you're a hacker, you'll fall head over heels for [OpenCode](https://github.com/sst/opencode).
@@ -197,8 +196,17 @@ Meet our main agent: Sisyphus (Opus 4.5 High). Below are the tools Sisyphus uses
 
 Just by installing this, you make your agents to work like:
 
-1. While Gemini 3 Pro writes the frontend as a background task, Claude Opus 4.5 handles the backend. Stuck debugging? Call GPT 5.2 for help. When the frontend reports done, verify and ship.
-2. Need to look something up? It scours official docs, your entire codebase history, and public GitHub implementations—using not just grep but built-in LSP tools and AST-Grep.
+1. Sisyphus doesn't waste time hunting for files himself; he keeps the main agent's context lean. Instead, he fires off background tasks to faster, cheaper models in parallel to map the territory for him.
+1. Sisyphus leverages LSP for refactoring; it's more deterministic, safer, and surgical.
+1. When the heavy lifting requires a UI touch, Sisyphus delegates frontend tasks directly to Gemini 3 Pro.
+1. If Sisyphus gets stuck in a loop or hits a wall, he doesn't keep banging his head—he calls GPT 5.2 for high-IQ strategic backup.
+1. Working with a complex open-source framework? Sisyphus spawns subagents to digest the raw source code and documentation in real-time. He operates with total contextual awareness.
+1. When Sisyphus touches comments, he either justifies their existence or nukes them. He keeps your codebase clean.
+1. Sisyphus is bound by his TODO list. If he doesn't finish what he started, the system forces him back into "bouldering" mode. Your task gets done, period.
+1. Honestly, don't even bother reading the docs. Just write your prompt. Include the 'ultrawork' keyword. Sisyphus will analyze the structure, gather the context, dig through external source code, and just keep bouldering until the job is 100% complete.
+1. Actually, typing 'ultrawork' is too much effort. Just type 'ulw'. Just ulw. Sip your coffee. Your work is done.
+
+Need to look something up? It scours official docs, your entire codebase history, and public GitHub implementations—using not just grep but built-in LSP tools and AST-Grep.
 3. Stop worrying about context management when delegating to LLMs. I've got it covered.
     - OhMyOpenCode aggressively leverages multiple agents to lighten the context load.
     - **Your agent is now the dev team lead. You're the AI Manager.**

package/README.zh-cn.md

@@ -191,13 +191,15 @@ oMoMoMoMoMo···
 
 装完之后，你的 Agent 画风是这样的：
 
-1. 后台让 Gemini 3 Pro 写前端，Claude Opus 4.5 同时在写后端。调试卡住了？喊 GPT 5.2 过来救场。前端说搞定了，你验货，上线。
-2. 要查资料？它会把官方文档、整个代码历史、GitHub 上的公开实现翻个底朝天——靠的不只是 grep，还有内置 LSP 和 AST-Grep。
-3. 别再操心什么上下文管理了。我包了。
-    - OhMyOpenCode 疯狂压榨多个 Agent，把上下文负担降到最低。
-    - **现在的 Agent 才是开发组长，你？你是 AI 经理。**
-4. 活儿没干完，绝对不收工。
-5. 不想研究这么深？没事。输入 "ultrathink" 就完事了。
+1. Sisyphus 从不把时间浪费在苦哈哈地找文件上，他时刻保持主 Agent 的 Context 精简干练。相反，他会并行启动一堆又快又便宜的背景任务模型，帮他先探路，摸清代码全貌。
+1. Sisyphus 善用 LSP 进行重构；这种方式更具确定性，更安全，且手术刀般精准。
+1. 遇到需要 UI 润色的重活儿时，Sisyphus 会直接把前端任务甩给 Gemini 3 Pro 处理。
+1. 如果 Sisyphus 陷入死循环或碰了壁，他绝不会在那儿死磕——他会呼叫 GPT 5.2 提供高智商的战略支援。
+1. 在处理复杂的开源框架？Sisyphus 会派生出 Subagents 实时消化源码和文档。他是在拥有全局 Context 意识的情况下进行操作的。
+1. 当 Sisyphus 动到注释时，他要么证明其存在的价值，要么直接干掉。他只负责保持你的代码库干净整洁。
+1. Sisyphus 受 TODO 列表的绝对约束。如果活儿没干完，系统会强行把他踢回"推石头（bouldering）"模式。一句话，任务必须搞定。
+1. 说实话，连文档都别费劲读了。直接写你的 Prompt，带上 'ultrawork' 关键字。Sisyphus 会自动分析结构、抓取 Context、深度挖掘外部源码，然后就这么一直"推石头"，直到任务 100% 彻底完成。
+1. 其实，输入 'ultrawork' 都挺费劲的。直接打 'ulw' 就行。就打 ulw。喝你的咖啡去吧，活儿已经帮你干完了。
 
 如果你不需要这全套服务，前面说了，挑你喜欢的用。
 

package/dist/cli/index.js

@@ -2657,7 +2657,7 @@ var require_napi = __commonJS((exports, module) => {
 var require_package = __commonJS((exports, module) => {
   module.exports = {
     name: "oh-my-opencode",
-    version: "2.12.4",
+    version: "2.13.0",
     description: "OpenCode plugin - custom agents (oracle, librarian) and enhanced features",
     main: "dist/index.js",
     types: "dist/index.d.ts",

package/dist/features/builtin-commands/templates/refactor.d.ts

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+export declare const REFACTOR_TEMPLATE = "# Intelligent Refactor Command\n\n## Usage\n```\n/refactor <refactoring-target> [--scope=<file|module|project>] [--strategy=<safe|aggressive>]\n\nArguments:\n  refactoring-target: What to refactor. Can be:\n    - File path: src/auth/handler.ts\n    - Symbol name: \"AuthService class\"\n    - Pattern: \"all functions using deprecated API\"\n    - Description: \"extract validation logic into separate module\"\n\nOptions:\n  --scope: Refactoring scope (default: module)\n    - file: Single file only\n    - module: Module/directory scope\n    - project: Entire codebase\n\n  --strategy: Risk tolerance (default: safe)\n    - safe: Conservative, maximum test coverage required\n    - aggressive: Allow broader changes with adequate coverage\n```\n\n## What This Command Does\n\nPerforms intelligent, deterministic refactoring with full codebase awareness. Unlike blind search-and-replace, this command:\n\n1. **Understands your intent** - Analyzes what you actually want to achieve\n2. **Maps the codebase** - Builds a definitive codemap before touching anything\n3. **Assesses risk** - Evaluates test coverage and determines verification strategy\n4. **Plans meticulously** - Creates a detailed plan with Plan agent\n5. **Executes precisely** - Step-by-step refactoring with LSP and AST-grep\n6. **Verifies constantly** - Runs tests after each change to ensure zero regression\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 0: INTENT GATE (MANDATORY FIRST STEP)\n\n**BEFORE ANY ACTION, classify and validate the request.**\n\n## Step 0.1: Parse Request Type\n\n| Signal | Classification | Action |\n|--------|----------------|--------|\n| Specific file/symbol | Explicit | Proceed to codebase analysis |\n| \"Refactor X to Y\" | Clear transformation | Proceed to codebase analysis |\n| \"Improve\", \"Clean up\" | Open-ended | **MUST ask**: \"What specific improvement?\" |\n| Ambiguous scope | Uncertain | **MUST ask**: \"Which modules/files?\" |\n| Missing context | Incomplete | **MUST ask**: \"What's the desired outcome?\" |\n\n## Step 0.2: Validate Understanding\n\nBefore proceeding, confirm:\n- [ ] Target is clearly identified\n- [ ] Desired outcome is understood\n- [ ] Scope is defined (file/module/project)\n- [ ] Success criteria can be articulated\n\n**If ANY of above is unclear, ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION:**\n\n```\nI want to make sure I understand the refactoring goal correctly.\n\n**What I understood**: [interpretation]\n**What I'm unsure about**: [specific ambiguity]\n\nOptions I see:\n1. [Option A] - [implications]\n2. [Option B] - [implications]\n\n**My recommendation**: [suggestion with reasoning]\n\nShould I proceed with [recommendation], or would you prefer differently?\n```\n\n## Step 0.3: Create Initial Todos\n\n**IMMEDIATELY after understanding the request, create todos:**\n\n```\nTodoWrite([\n  {\"id\": \"phase-1\", \"content\": \"PHASE 1: Codebase Analysis - launch parallel explore agents\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-2\", \"content\": \"PHASE 2: Build Codemap - map dependencies and impact zones\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-3\", \"content\": \"PHASE 3: Test Assessment - analyze test coverage and verification strategy\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-4\", \"content\": \"PHASE 4: Plan Generation - invoke Plan agent for detailed refactoring plan\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-5\", \"content\": \"PHASE 5: Execute Refactoring - step-by-step with continuous verification\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"phase-6\", \"content\": \"PHASE 6: Final Verification - full test suite and regression check\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"}\n])\n```\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 1: CODEBASE ANALYSIS (PARALLEL EXPLORATION)\n\n**Mark phase-1 as in_progress.**\n\n## 1.1: Launch Parallel Explore Agents (BACKGROUND)\n\nFire ALL of these simultaneously using `call_omo_agent`:\n\n```\n// Agent 1: Find the refactoring target\ncall_omo_agent(\n  subagent_type=\"explore\",\n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find all occurrences and definitions of [TARGET]. \n  Report: file paths, line numbers, usage patterns.\"\n)\n\n// Agent 2: Find related code\ncall_omo_agent(\n  subagent_type=\"explore\", \n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find all code that imports, uses, or depends on [TARGET].\n  Report: dependency chains, import graphs.\"\n)\n\n// Agent 3: Find similar patterns\ncall_omo_agent(\n  subagent_type=\"explore\",\n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find similar code patterns to [TARGET] in the codebase.\n  Report: analogous implementations, established conventions.\"\n)\n\n// Agent 4: Find tests\ncall_omo_agent(\n  subagent_type=\"explore\",\n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find all test files related to [TARGET].\n  Report: test file paths, test case names, coverage indicators.\"\n)\n\n// Agent 5: Architecture context\ncall_omo_agent(\n  subagent_type=\"explore\",\n  run_in_background=true,\n  prompt=\"Find architectural patterns and module organization around [TARGET].\n  Report: module boundaries, layer structure, design patterns in use.\"\n)\n```\n\n## 1.2: Direct Tool Exploration (WHILE AGENTS RUN)\n\nWhile background agents are running, use direct tools:\n\n### LSP Tools for Precise Analysis:\n\n```typescript\n// Get symbol information at target location\nlsp_hover(filePath, line, character)  // Type info, docs, signatures\n\n// Find definition(s)\nlsp_goto_definition(filePath, line, character)  // Where is it defined?\n\n// Find ALL usages across workspace\nlsp_find_references(filePath, line, character, includeDeclaration=true)\n\n// Get file structure\nlsp_document_symbols(filePath)  // Hierarchical outline\n\n// Search symbols by name\nlsp_workspace_symbols(filePath, query=\"[target_symbol]\")\n\n// Get current diagnostics\nlsp_diagnostics(filePath)  // Errors, warnings before we start\n```\n\n### AST-Grep for Pattern Analysis:\n\n```typescript\n// Find structural patterns\nast_grep_search(\n  pattern=\"function $NAME($$$) { $$$ }\",  // or relevant pattern\n  lang=\"typescript\",  // or relevant language\n  paths=[\"src/\"]\n)\n\n// Preview refactoring (DRY RUN)\nast_grep_replace(\n  pattern=\"[old_pattern]\",\n  rewrite=\"[new_pattern]\",\n  lang=\"[language]\",\n  dryRun=true  // ALWAYS preview first\n)\n```\n\n### Grep for Text Patterns:\n\n```\ngrep(pattern=\"[search_term]\", path=\"src/\", include=\"*.ts\")\n```\n\n## 1.3: Collect Background Results\n\n```\nbackground_output(task_id=\"[agent_1_id]\")\nbackground_output(task_id=\"[agent_2_id]\")\n...\n```\n\n**Mark phase-1 as completed after all results collected.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 2: BUILD CODEMAP (DEPENDENCY MAPPING)\n\n**Mark phase-2 as in_progress.**\n\n## 2.1: Construct Definitive Codemap\n\nBased on Phase 1 results, build:\n\n```\n## CODEMAP: [TARGET]\n\n### Core Files (Direct Impact)\n- `path/to/file.ts:L10-L50` - Primary definition\n- `path/to/file2.ts:L25` - Key usage\n\n### Dependency Graph\n```\n[TARGET] \n\u251C\u2500\u2500 imports from: \n\u2502   \u251C\u2500\u2500 module-a (types)\n\u2502   \u2514\u2500\u2500 module-b (utils)\n\u251C\u2500\u2500 imported by:\n\u2502   \u251C\u2500\u2500 consumer-1.ts\n\u2502   \u251C\u2500\u2500 consumer-2.ts\n\u2502   \u2514\u2500\u2500 consumer-3.ts\n\u2514\u2500\u2500 used by:\n    \u251C\u2500\u2500 handler.ts (direct call)\n    \u2514\u2500\u2500 service.ts (dependency injection)\n```\n\n### Impact Zones\n| Zone | Risk Level | Files Affected | Test Coverage |\n|------|------------|----------------|---------------|\n| Core | HIGH | 3 files | 85% covered |\n| Consumers | MEDIUM | 8 files | 70% covered |\n| Edge | LOW | 2 files | 50% covered |\n\n### Established Patterns\n- Pattern A: [description] - used in N places\n- Pattern B: [description] - established convention\n```\n\n## 2.2: Identify Refactoring Constraints\n\nBased on codemap:\n- **MUST follow**: [existing patterns identified]\n- **MUST NOT break**: [critical dependencies]\n- **Safe to change**: [isolated code zones]\n- **Requires migration**: [breaking changes impact]\n\n**Mark phase-2 as completed.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 3: TEST ASSESSMENT (VERIFICATION STRATEGY)\n\n**Mark phase-3 as in_progress.**\n\n## 3.1: Detect Test Infrastructure\n\n```bash\n# Check for test commands\ncat package.json | jq '.scripts | keys[] | select(test(\"test\"))'\n\n# Or for Python\nls -la pytest.ini pyproject.toml setup.cfg\n\n# Or for Go\nls -la *_test.go\n```\n\n## 3.2: Analyze Test Coverage\n\n```\n// Find all tests related to target\ncall_omo_agent(\n  subagent_type=\"explore\",\n  run_in_background=false,  // Need this synchronously\n  prompt=\"Analyze test coverage for [TARGET]:\n  1. Which test files cover this code?\n  2. What test cases exist?\n  3. Are there integration tests?\n  4. What edge cases are tested?\n  5. Estimated coverage percentage?\"\n)\n```\n\n## 3.3: Determine Verification Strategy\n\nBased on test analysis:\n\n| Coverage Level | Strategy |\n|----------------|----------|\n| HIGH (>80%) | Run existing tests after each step |\n| MEDIUM (50-80%) | Run tests + add safety assertions |\n| LOW (<50%) | **PAUSE**: Propose adding tests first |\n| NONE | **BLOCK**: Refuse aggressive refactoring |\n\n**If coverage is LOW or NONE, ask user:**\n\n```\nTest coverage for [TARGET] is [LEVEL].\n\n**Risk Assessment**: Refactoring without adequate tests is dangerous.\n\nOptions:\n1. Add tests first, then refactor (RECOMMENDED)\n2. Proceed with extra caution, manual verification required\n3. Abort refactoring\n\nWhich approach do you prefer?\n```\n\n## 3.4: Document Verification Plan\n\n```\n## VERIFICATION PLAN\n\n### Test Commands\n- Unit: `bun test` / `npm test` / `pytest` / etc.\n- Integration: [command if exists]\n- Type check: `tsc --noEmit` / `pyright` / etc.\n\n### Verification Checkpoints\nAfter each refactoring step:\n1. lsp_diagnostics \u2192 zero new errors\n2. Run test command \u2192 all pass\n3. Type check \u2192 clean\n\n### Regression Indicators\n- [Specific test that must pass]\n- [Behavior that must be preserved]\n- [API contract that must not change]\n```\n\n**Mark phase-3 as completed.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 4: PLAN GENERATION (PLAN AGENT)\n\n**Mark phase-4 as in_progress.**\n\n## 4.1: Invoke Plan Agent\n\n```\nTask(\n  subagent_type=\"plan\",\n  prompt=\"Create a detailed refactoring plan:\n\n  ## Refactoring Goal\n  [User's original request]\n\n  ## Codemap (from Phase 2)\n  [Insert codemap here]\n\n  ## Test Coverage (from Phase 3)\n  [Insert verification plan here]\n\n  ## Constraints\n  - MUST follow existing patterns: [list]\n  - MUST NOT break: [critical paths]\n  - MUST run tests after each step\n\n  ## Requirements\n  1. Break down into atomic refactoring steps\n  2. Each step must be independently verifiable\n  3. Order steps by dependency (what must happen first)\n  4. Specify exact files and line ranges for each step\n  5. Include rollback strategy for each step\n  6. Define commit checkpoints\"\n)\n```\n\n## 4.2: Review and Validate Plan\n\nAfter receiving plan from Plan agent:\n\n1. **Verify completeness**: All identified files addressed?\n2. **Verify safety**: Each step reversible?\n3. **Verify order**: Dependencies respected?\n4. **Verify verification**: Test commands specified?\n\n## 4.3: Register Detailed Todos\n\nConvert Plan agent output into granular todos:\n\n```\nTodoWrite([\n  // Each step from the plan becomes a todo\n  {\"id\": \"refactor-1\", \"content\": \"Step 1: [description]\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"verify-1\", \"content\": \"Verify Step 1: run tests\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"high\"},\n  {\"id\": \"refactor-2\", \"content\": \"Step 2: [description]\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"medium\"},\n  {\"id\": \"verify-2\", \"content\": \"Verify Step 2: run tests\", \"status\": \"pending\", \"priority\": \"medium\"},\n  // ... continue for all steps\n])\n```\n\n**Mark phase-4 as completed.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 5: EXECUTE REFACTORING (DETERMINISTIC EXECUTION)\n\n**Mark phase-5 as in_progress.**\n\n## 5.1: Execution Protocol\n\nFor EACH refactoring step:\n\n### Pre-Step\n1. Mark step todo as `in_progress`\n2. Read current file state\n3. Verify lsp_diagnostics is baseline\n\n### Execute Step\nUse appropriate tool:\n\n**For Symbol Renames:**\n```typescript\nlsp_prepare_rename(filePath, line, character)  // Validate rename is possible\nlsp_rename(filePath, line, character, newName)  // Execute rename\n```\n\n**For Pattern Transformations:**\n```typescript\n// Preview first\nast_grep_replace(pattern, rewrite, lang, dryRun=true)\n\n// If preview looks good, execute\nast_grep_replace(pattern, rewrite, lang, dryRun=false)\n```\n\n**For Structural Changes:**\n```typescript\n// Use Edit tool for precise changes\nedit(filePath, oldString, newString)\n```\n\n### Post-Step Verification (MANDATORY)\n\n```typescript\n// 1. Check diagnostics\nlsp_diagnostics(filePath)  // Must be clean or same as baseline\n\n// 2. Run tests\nbash(\"bun test\")  // Or appropriate test command\n\n// 3. Type check\nbash(\"tsc --noEmit\")  // Or appropriate type check\n```\n\n### Step Completion\n1. If verification passes \u2192 Mark step todo as `completed`\n2. If verification fails \u2192 **STOP AND FIX**\n\n## 5.2: Failure Recovery Protocol\n\nIf ANY verification fails:\n\n1. **STOP** immediately\n2. **REVERT** the failed change\n3. **DIAGNOSE** what went wrong\n4. **OPTIONS**:\n   - Fix the issue and retry\n   - Skip this step (if optional)\n   - Consult oracle agent for help\n   - Ask user for guidance\n\n**NEVER proceed to next step with broken tests.**\n\n## 5.3: Commit Checkpoints\n\nAfter each logical group of changes:\n\n```bash\ngit add [changed-files]\ngit commit -m \"refactor(scope): description\n\n[details of what was changed and why]\"\n```\n\n**Mark phase-5 as completed when all refactoring steps done.**\n\n---\n\n# PHASE 6: FINAL VERIFICATION (REGRESSION CHECK)\n\n**Mark phase-6 as in_progress.**\n\n## 6.1: Full Test Suite\n\n```bash\n# Run complete test suite\nbun test  # or npm test, pytest, go test, etc.\n```\n\n## 6.2: Type Check\n\n```bash\n# Full type check\ntsc --noEmit  # or equivalent\n```\n\n## 6.3: Lint Check\n\n```bash\n# Run linter\neslint .  # or equivalent\n```\n\n## 6.4: Build Verification (if applicable)\n\n```bash\n# Ensure build still works\nbun run build  # or npm run build, etc.\n```\n\n## 6.5: Final Diagnostics\n\n```typescript\n// Check all changed files\nfor (file of changedFiles) {\n  lsp_diagnostics(file)  // Must all be clean\n}\n```\n\n## 6.6: Generate Summary\n\n```markdown\n## Refactoring Complete\n\n### What Changed\n- [List of changes made]\n\n### Files Modified\n- `path/to/file.ts` - [what changed]\n- `path/to/file2.ts` - [what changed]\n\n### Verification Results\n- Tests: PASSED (X/Y passing)\n- Type Check: CLEAN\n- Lint: CLEAN\n- Build: SUCCESS\n\n### No Regressions Detected\nAll existing tests pass. No new errors introduced.\n```\n\n**Mark phase-6 as completed.**\n\n---\n\n# CRITICAL RULES\n\n## NEVER DO\n- Skip lsp_diagnostics check after changes\n- Proceed with failing tests\n- Make changes without understanding impact\n- Use `as any`, `@ts-ignore`, `@ts-expect-error`\n- Delete tests to make them pass\n- Commit broken code\n- Refactor without understanding existing patterns\n\n## ALWAYS DO\n- Understand before changing\n- Preview before applying (ast_grep dryRun=true)\n- Verify after every change\n- Follow existing codebase patterns\n- Keep todos updated in real-time\n- Commit at logical checkpoints\n- Report issues immediately\n\n## ABORT CONDITIONS\nIf any of these occur, **STOP and consult user**:\n- Test coverage is zero for target code\n- Changes would break public API\n- Refactoring scope is unclear\n- 3 consecutive verification failures\n- User-defined constraints violated\n\n---\n\n# Tool Usage Philosophy\n\nYou already know these tools. Use them intelligently:\n\n## LSP Tools\nLeverage the full LSP toolset (`lsp_*`) for precision analysis. Key patterns:\n- **Understand before changing**: `lsp_hover`, `lsp_goto_definition` to grasp context\n- **Impact analysis**: `lsp_find_references` to map all usages before modification\n- **Safe refactoring**: `lsp_prepare_rename` \u2192 `lsp_rename` for symbol renames\n- **Continuous verification**: `lsp_diagnostics` after every change\n\n## AST-Grep\nUse `ast_grep_search` and `ast_grep_replace` for structural transformations.\n**Critical**: Always `dryRun=true` first, review, then execute.\n\n## Agents\n- `explore`: Parallel codebase pattern discovery\n- `plan`: Detailed refactoring plan generation\n- `oracle`: Consult for complex architectural decisions\n- `librarian`: **Use proactively** when encountering deprecated methods or library migration tasks. Query official docs and OSS examples for modern replacements.\n\n## Deprecated Code & Library Migration\nWhen you encounter deprecated methods/APIs during refactoring:\n1. Fire `librarian` to find the recommended modern alternative\n2. **DO NOT auto-upgrade to latest version** unless user explicitly requests migration\n3. If user requests library migration, use `librarian` to fetch latest API docs before making changes\n\n---\n\n**Remember: Refactoring without tests is reckless. Refactoring without understanding is destructive. This command ensures you do neither.**\n\n<user-request>\n$ARGUMENTS\n</user-request>\n";

package/dist/features/builtin-commands/types.d.ts

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 import type { CommandDefinition } from "../claude-code-command-loader";
-export type BuiltinCommandName = "init-deep" | "ralph-loop" | "cancel-ralph";
+export type BuiltinCommandName = "init-deep" | "ralph-loop" | "cancel-ralph" | "refactor";
 export interface BuiltinCommandConfig {
     disabled_commands?: BuiltinCommandName[];
 }

package/dist/index.js

@@ -45667,6 +45667,632 @@ This will:
 
 Check if a loop is active and cancel it. Inform the user of the result.`;
 
+// src/features/builtin-commands/templates/refactor.ts
+var REFACTOR_TEMPLATE = `# Intelligent Refactor Command
+
+## Usage
+\`\`\`
+/refactor <refactoring-target> [--scope=<file|module|project>] [--strategy=<safe|aggressive>]
+
+Arguments:
+  refactoring-target: What to refactor. Can be:
+    - File path: src/auth/handler.ts
+    - Symbol name: "AuthService class"
+    - Pattern: "all functions using deprecated API"
+    - Description: "extract validation logic into separate module"
+
+Options:
+  --scope: Refactoring scope (default: module)
+    - file: Single file only
+    - module: Module/directory scope
+    - project: Entire codebase
+
+  --strategy: Risk tolerance (default: safe)
+    - safe: Conservative, maximum test coverage required
+    - aggressive: Allow broader changes with adequate coverage
+\`\`\`
+
+## What This Command Does
+
+Performs intelligent, deterministic refactoring with full codebase awareness. Unlike blind search-and-replace, this command:
+
+1. **Understands your intent** - Analyzes what you actually want to achieve
+2. **Maps the codebase** - Builds a definitive codemap before touching anything
+3. **Assesses risk** - Evaluates test coverage and determines verification strategy
+4. **Plans meticulously** - Creates a detailed plan with Plan agent
+5. **Executes precisely** - Step-by-step refactoring with LSP and AST-grep
+6. **Verifies constantly** - Runs tests after each change to ensure zero regression
+
+---
+
+# PHASE 0: INTENT GATE (MANDATORY FIRST STEP)
+
+**BEFORE ANY ACTION, classify and validate the request.**
+
+## Step 0.1: Parse Request Type
+
+| Signal | Classification | Action |
+|--------|----------------|--------|
+| Specific file/symbol | Explicit | Proceed to codebase analysis |
+| "Refactor X to Y" | Clear transformation | Proceed to codebase analysis |
+| "Improve", "Clean up" | Open-ended | **MUST ask**: "What specific improvement?" |
+| Ambiguous scope | Uncertain | **MUST ask**: "Which modules/files?" |
+| Missing context | Incomplete | **MUST ask**: "What's the desired outcome?" |
+
+## Step 0.2: Validate Understanding
+
+Before proceeding, confirm:
+- [ ] Target is clearly identified
+- [ ] Desired outcome is understood
+- [ ] Scope is defined (file/module/project)
+- [ ] Success criteria can be articulated
+
+**If ANY of above is unclear, ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION:**
+
+\`\`\`
+I want to make sure I understand the refactoring goal correctly.
+
+**What I understood**: [interpretation]
+**What I'm unsure about**: [specific ambiguity]
+
+Options I see:
+1. [Option A] - [implications]
+2. [Option B] - [implications]
+
+**My recommendation**: [suggestion with reasoning]
+
+Should I proceed with [recommendation], or would you prefer differently?
+\`\`\`
+
+## Step 0.3: Create Initial Todos
+
+**IMMEDIATELY after understanding the request, create todos:**
+
+\`\`\`
+TodoWrite([
+  {"id": "phase-1", "content": "PHASE 1: Codebase Analysis - launch parallel explore agents", "status": "pending", "priority": "high"},
+  {"id": "phase-2", "content": "PHASE 2: Build Codemap - map dependencies and impact zones", "status": "pending", "priority": "high"},
+  {"id": "phase-3", "content": "PHASE 3: Test Assessment - analyze test coverage and verification strategy", "status": "pending", "priority": "high"},
+  {"id": "phase-4", "content": "PHASE 4: Plan Generation - invoke Plan agent for detailed refactoring plan", "status": "pending", "priority": "high"},
+  {"id": "phase-5", "content": "PHASE 5: Execute Refactoring - step-by-step with continuous verification", "status": "pending", "priority": "high"},
+  {"id": "phase-6", "content": "PHASE 6: Final Verification - full test suite and regression check", "status": "pending", "priority": "high"}
+])
+\`\`\`
+
+---
+
+# PHASE 1: CODEBASE ANALYSIS (PARALLEL EXPLORATION)
+
+**Mark phase-1 as in_progress.**
+
+## 1.1: Launch Parallel Explore Agents (BACKGROUND)
+
+Fire ALL of these simultaneously using \`call_omo_agent\`:
+
+\`\`\`
+// Agent 1: Find the refactoring target
+call_omo_agent(
+  subagent_type="explore",
+  run_in_background=true,
+  prompt="Find all occurrences and definitions of [TARGET]. 
+  Report: file paths, line numbers, usage patterns."
+)
+
+// Agent 2: Find related code
+call_omo_agent(
+  subagent_type="explore", 
+  run_in_background=true,
+  prompt="Find all code that imports, uses, or depends on [TARGET].
+  Report: dependency chains, import graphs."
+)
+
+// Agent 3: Find similar patterns
+call_omo_agent(
+  subagent_type="explore",
+  run_in_background=true,
+  prompt="Find similar code patterns to [TARGET] in the codebase.
+  Report: analogous implementations, established conventions."
+)
+
+// Agent 4: Find tests
+call_omo_agent(
+  subagent_type="explore",
+  run_in_background=true,
+  prompt="Find all test files related to [TARGET].
+  Report: test file paths, test case names, coverage indicators."
+)
+
+// Agent 5: Architecture context
+call_omo_agent(
+  subagent_type="explore",
+  run_in_background=true,
+  prompt="Find architectural patterns and module organization around [TARGET].
+  Report: module boundaries, layer structure, design patterns in use."
+)
+\`\`\`
+
+## 1.2: Direct Tool Exploration (WHILE AGENTS RUN)
+
+While background agents are running, use direct tools:
+
+### LSP Tools for Precise Analysis:
+
+\`\`\`typescript
+// Get symbol information at target location
+lsp_hover(filePath, line, character)  // Type info, docs, signatures
+
+// Find definition(s)
+lsp_goto_definition(filePath, line, character)  // Where is it defined?
+
+// Find ALL usages across workspace
+lsp_find_references(filePath, line, character, includeDeclaration=true)
+
+// Get file structure
+lsp_document_symbols(filePath)  // Hierarchical outline
+
+// Search symbols by name
+lsp_workspace_symbols(filePath, query="[target_symbol]")
+
+// Get current diagnostics
+lsp_diagnostics(filePath)  // Errors, warnings before we start
+\`\`\`
+
+### AST-Grep for Pattern Analysis:
+
+\`\`\`typescript
+// Find structural patterns
+ast_grep_search(
+  pattern="function $NAME($$$) { $$$ }",  // or relevant pattern
+  lang="typescript",  // or relevant language
+  paths=["src/"]
+)
+
+// Preview refactoring (DRY RUN)
+ast_grep_replace(
+  pattern="[old_pattern]",
+  rewrite="[new_pattern]",
+  lang="[language]",
+  dryRun=true  // ALWAYS preview first
+)
+\`\`\`
+
+### Grep for Text Patterns:
+
+\`\`\`
+grep(pattern="[search_term]", path="src/", include="*.ts")
+\`\`\`
+
+## 1.3: Collect Background Results
+
+\`\`\`
+background_output(task_id="[agent_1_id]")
+background_output(task_id="[agent_2_id]")
+...
+\`\`\`
+
+**Mark phase-1 as completed after all results collected.**
+
+---
+
+# PHASE 2: BUILD CODEMAP (DEPENDENCY MAPPING)
+
+**Mark phase-2 as in_progress.**
+
+## 2.1: Construct Definitive Codemap
+
+Based on Phase 1 results, build:
+
+\`\`\`
+## CODEMAP: [TARGET]
+
+### Core Files (Direct Impact)
+- \`path/to/file.ts:L10-L50\` - Primary definition
+- \`path/to/file2.ts:L25\` - Key usage
+
+### Dependency Graph
+\`\`\`
+[TARGET] 
+\u251C\u2500\u2500 imports from: 
+\u2502   \u251C\u2500\u2500 module-a (types)
+\u2502   \u2514\u2500\u2500 module-b (utils)
+\u251C\u2500\u2500 imported by:
+\u2502   \u251C\u2500\u2500 consumer-1.ts
+\u2502   \u251C\u2500\u2500 consumer-2.ts
+\u2502   \u2514\u2500\u2500 consumer-3.ts
+\u2514\u2500\u2500 used by:
+    \u251C\u2500\u2500 handler.ts (direct call)
+    \u2514\u2500\u2500 service.ts (dependency injection)
+\`\`\`
+
+### Impact Zones
+| Zone | Risk Level | Files Affected | Test Coverage |
+|------|------------|----------------|---------------|
+| Core | HIGH | 3 files | 85% covered |
+| Consumers | MEDIUM | 8 files | 70% covered |
+| Edge | LOW | 2 files | 50% covered |
+
+### Established Patterns
+- Pattern A: [description] - used in N places
+- Pattern B: [description] - established convention
+\`\`\`
+
+## 2.2: Identify Refactoring Constraints
+
+Based on codemap:
+- **MUST follow**: [existing patterns identified]
+- **MUST NOT break**: [critical dependencies]
+- **Safe to change**: [isolated code zones]
+- **Requires migration**: [breaking changes impact]
+
+**Mark phase-2 as completed.**
+
+---
+
+# PHASE 3: TEST ASSESSMENT (VERIFICATION STRATEGY)
+
+**Mark phase-3 as in_progress.**
+
+## 3.1: Detect Test Infrastructure
+
+\`\`\`bash
+# Check for test commands
+cat package.json | jq '.scripts | keys[] | select(test("test"))'
+
+# Or for Python
+ls -la pytest.ini pyproject.toml setup.cfg
+
+# Or for Go
+ls -la *_test.go
+\`\`\`
+
+## 3.2: Analyze Test Coverage
+
+\`\`\`
+// Find all tests related to target
+call_omo_agent(
+  subagent_type="explore",
+  run_in_background=false,  // Need this synchronously
+  prompt="Analyze test coverage for [TARGET]:
+  1. Which test files cover this code?
+  2. What test cases exist?
+  3. Are there integration tests?
+  4. What edge cases are tested?
+  5. Estimated coverage percentage?"
+)
+\`\`\`
+
+## 3.3: Determine Verification Strategy
+
+Based on test analysis:
+
+| Coverage Level | Strategy |
+|----------------|----------|
+| HIGH (>80%) | Run existing tests after each step |
+| MEDIUM (50-80%) | Run tests + add safety assertions |
+| LOW (<50%) | **PAUSE**: Propose adding tests first |
+| NONE | **BLOCK**: Refuse aggressive refactoring |
+
+**If coverage is LOW or NONE, ask user:**
+
+\`\`\`
+Test coverage for [TARGET] is [LEVEL].
+
+**Risk Assessment**: Refactoring without adequate tests is dangerous.
+
+Options:
+1. Add tests first, then refactor (RECOMMENDED)
+2. Proceed with extra caution, manual verification required
+3. Abort refactoring
+
+Which approach do you prefer?
+\`\`\`
+
+## 3.4: Document Verification Plan
+
+\`\`\`
+## VERIFICATION PLAN
+
+### Test Commands
+- Unit: \`bun test\` / \`npm test\` / \`pytest\` / etc.
+- Integration: [command if exists]
+- Type check: \`tsc --noEmit\` / \`pyright\` / etc.
+
+### Verification Checkpoints
+After each refactoring step:
+1. lsp_diagnostics \u2192 zero new errors
+2. Run test command \u2192 all pass
+3. Type check \u2192 clean
+
+### Regression Indicators
+- [Specific test that must pass]
+- [Behavior that must be preserved]
+- [API contract that must not change]
+\`\`\`
+
+**Mark phase-3 as completed.**
+
+---
+
+# PHASE 4: PLAN GENERATION (PLAN AGENT)
+
+**Mark phase-4 as in_progress.**
+
+## 4.1: Invoke Plan Agent
+
+\`\`\`
+Task(
+  subagent_type="plan",
+  prompt="Create a detailed refactoring plan:
+
+  ## Refactoring Goal
+  [User's original request]
+
+  ## Codemap (from Phase 2)
+  [Insert codemap here]
+
+  ## Test Coverage (from Phase 3)
+  [Insert verification plan here]
+
+  ## Constraints
+  - MUST follow existing patterns: [list]
+  - MUST NOT break: [critical paths]
+  - MUST run tests after each step
+
+  ## Requirements
+  1. Break down into atomic refactoring steps
+  2. Each step must be independently verifiable
+  3. Order steps by dependency (what must happen first)
+  4. Specify exact files and line ranges for each step
+  5. Include rollback strategy for each step
+  6. Define commit checkpoints"
+)
+\`\`\`
+
+## 4.2: Review and Validate Plan
+
+After receiving plan from Plan agent:
+
+1. **Verify completeness**: All identified files addressed?
+2. **Verify safety**: Each step reversible?
+3. **Verify order**: Dependencies respected?
+4. **Verify verification**: Test commands specified?
+
+## 4.3: Register Detailed Todos
+
+Convert Plan agent output into granular todos:
+
+\`\`\`
+TodoWrite([
+  // Each step from the plan becomes a todo
+  {"id": "refactor-1", "content": "Step 1: [description]", "status": "pending", "priority": "high"},
+  {"id": "verify-1", "content": "Verify Step 1: run tests", "status": "pending", "priority": "high"},
+  {"id": "refactor-2", "content": "Step 2: [description]", "status": "pending", "priority": "medium"},
+  {"id": "verify-2", "content": "Verify Step 2: run tests", "status": "pending", "priority": "medium"},
+  // ... continue for all steps
+])
+\`\`\`
+
+**Mark phase-4 as completed.**
+
+---
+
+# PHASE 5: EXECUTE REFACTORING (DETERMINISTIC EXECUTION)
+
+**Mark phase-5 as in_progress.**
+
+## 5.1: Execution Protocol
+
+For EACH refactoring step:
+
+### Pre-Step
+1. Mark step todo as \`in_progress\`
+2. Read current file state
+3. Verify lsp_diagnostics is baseline
+
+### Execute Step
+Use appropriate tool:
+
+**For Symbol Renames:**
+\`\`\`typescript
+lsp_prepare_rename(filePath, line, character)  // Validate rename is possible
+lsp_rename(filePath, line, character, newName)  // Execute rename
+\`\`\`
+
+**For Pattern Transformations:**
+\`\`\`typescript
+// Preview first
+ast_grep_replace(pattern, rewrite, lang, dryRun=true)
+
+// If preview looks good, execute
+ast_grep_replace(pattern, rewrite, lang, dryRun=false)
+\`\`\`
+
+**For Structural Changes:**
+\`\`\`typescript
+// Use Edit tool for precise changes
+edit(filePath, oldString, newString)
+\`\`\`
+
+### Post-Step Verification (MANDATORY)
+
+\`\`\`typescript
+// 1. Check diagnostics
+lsp_diagnostics(filePath)  // Must be clean or same as baseline
+
+// 2. Run tests
+bash("bun test")  // Or appropriate test command
+
+// 3. Type check
+bash("tsc --noEmit")  // Or appropriate type check
+\`\`\`
+
+### Step Completion
+1. If verification passes \u2192 Mark step todo as \`completed\`
+2. If verification fails \u2192 **STOP AND FIX**
+
+## 5.2: Failure Recovery Protocol
+
+If ANY verification fails:
+
+1. **STOP** immediately
+2. **REVERT** the failed change
+3. **DIAGNOSE** what went wrong
+4. **OPTIONS**:
+   - Fix the issue and retry
+   - Skip this step (if optional)
+   - Consult oracle agent for help
+   - Ask user for guidance
+
+**NEVER proceed to next step with broken tests.**
+
+## 5.3: Commit Checkpoints
+
+After each logical group of changes:
+
+\`\`\`bash
+git add [changed-files]
+git commit -m "refactor(scope): description
+
+[details of what was changed and why]"
+\`\`\`
+
+**Mark phase-5 as completed when all refactoring steps done.**
+
+---
+
+# PHASE 6: FINAL VERIFICATION (REGRESSION CHECK)
+
+**Mark phase-6 as in_progress.**
+
+## 6.1: Full Test Suite
+
+\`\`\`bash
+# Run complete test suite
+bun test  # or npm test, pytest, go test, etc.
+\`\`\`
+
+## 6.2: Type Check
+
+\`\`\`bash
+# Full type check
+tsc --noEmit  # or equivalent
+\`\`\`
+
+## 6.3: Lint Check
+
+\`\`\`bash
+# Run linter
+eslint .  # or equivalent
+\`\`\`
+
+## 6.4: Build Verification (if applicable)
+
+\`\`\`bash
+# Ensure build still works
+bun run build  # or npm run build, etc.
+\`\`\`
+
+## 6.5: Final Diagnostics
+
+\`\`\`typescript
+// Check all changed files
+for (file of changedFiles) {
+  lsp_diagnostics(file)  // Must all be clean
+}
+\`\`\`
+
+## 6.6: Generate Summary
+
+\`\`\`markdown
+## Refactoring Complete
+
+### What Changed
+- [List of changes made]
+
+### Files Modified
+- \`path/to/file.ts\` - [what changed]
+- \`path/to/file2.ts\` - [what changed]
+
+### Verification Results
+- Tests: PASSED (X/Y passing)
+- Type Check: CLEAN
+- Lint: CLEAN
+- Build: SUCCESS
+
+### No Regressions Detected
+All existing tests pass. No new errors introduced.
+\`\`\`
+
+**Mark phase-6 as completed.**
+
+---
+
+# CRITICAL RULES
+
+## NEVER DO
+- Skip lsp_diagnostics check after changes
+- Proceed with failing tests
+- Make changes without understanding impact
+- Use \`as any\`, \`@ts-ignore\`, \`@ts-expect-error\`
+- Delete tests to make them pass
+- Commit broken code
+- Refactor without understanding existing patterns
+
+## ALWAYS DO
+- Understand before changing
+- Preview before applying (ast_grep dryRun=true)
+- Verify after every change
+- Follow existing codebase patterns
+- Keep todos updated in real-time
+- Commit at logical checkpoints
+- Report issues immediately
+
+## ABORT CONDITIONS
+If any of these occur, **STOP and consult user**:
+- Test coverage is zero for target code
+- Changes would break public API
+- Refactoring scope is unclear
+- 3 consecutive verification failures
+- User-defined constraints violated
+
+---
+
+# Tool Usage Philosophy
+
+You already know these tools. Use them intelligently:
+
+## LSP Tools
+Leverage the full LSP toolset (\`lsp_*\`) for precision analysis. Key patterns:
+- **Understand before changing**: \`lsp_hover\`, \`lsp_goto_definition\` to grasp context
+- **Impact analysis**: \`lsp_find_references\` to map all usages before modification
+- **Safe refactoring**: \`lsp_prepare_rename\` \u2192 \`lsp_rename\` for symbol renames
+- **Continuous verification**: \`lsp_diagnostics\` after every change
+
+## AST-Grep
+Use \`ast_grep_search\` and \`ast_grep_replace\` for structural transformations.
+**Critical**: Always \`dryRun=true\` first, review, then execute.
+
+## Agents
+- \`explore\`: Parallel codebase pattern discovery
+- \`plan\`: Detailed refactoring plan generation
+- \`oracle\`: Consult for complex architectural decisions
+- \`librarian\`: **Use proactively** when encountering deprecated methods or library migration tasks. Query official docs and OSS examples for modern replacements.
+
+## Deprecated Code & Library Migration
+When you encounter deprecated methods/APIs during refactoring:
+1. Fire \`librarian\` to find the recommended modern alternative
+2. **DO NOT auto-upgrade to latest version** unless user explicitly requests migration
+3. If user requests library migration, use \`librarian\` to fetch latest API docs before making changes
+
+---
+
+**Remember: Refactoring without tests is reckless. Refactoring without understanding is destructive. This command ensures you do neither.**
+
+<user-request>
+$ARGUMENTS
+</user-request>
+`;
+
 // src/features/builtin-commands/commands.ts
 var BUILTIN_COMMAND_DEFINITIONS = {
   "init-deep": {
@@ -45696,6 +46322,13 @@ $ARGUMENTS
     template: `<command-instruction>
 ${CANCEL_RALPH_TEMPLATE}
 </command-instruction>`
+  },
+  refactor: {
+    description: "(builtin) Intelligent refactoring command with LSP, AST-grep, architecture analysis, codemap, and TDD verification.",
+    template: `<command-instruction>
+${REFACTOR_TEMPLATE}
+</command-instruction>`,
+    argumentHint: "<refactoring-target> [--scope=<file|module|project>] [--strategy=<safe|aggressive>]"
   }
 };
 function loadBuiltinCommands(disabledCommands) {
@@ -46288,17 +46921,9 @@ function createConfigHandler(deps) {
       log(`Plugin load errors`, { errors: pluginComponents.errors });
     }
     const builtinAgents = createBuiltinAgents(pluginConfig.disabled_agents, pluginConfig.agents, ctx.directory, config3.model);
-    const rawUserAgents = pluginConfig.claude_code?.agents ?? true ? loadUserAgents() : {};
-    const rawProjectAgents = pluginConfig.claude_code?.agents ?? true ? loadProjectAgents() : {};
+    const userAgents = pluginConfig.claude_code?.agents ?? true ? loadUserAgents() : {};
+    const projectAgents = pluginConfig.claude_code?.agents ?? true ? loadProjectAgents() : {};
     const rawPluginAgents = pluginComponents.agents;
-    const userAgents = Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(rawUserAgents).map(([k, v]) => [
-      k,
-      v ? migrateAgentConfig(v) : v
-    ]));
-    const projectAgents = Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(rawProjectAgents).map(([k, v]) => [
-      k,
-      v ? migrateAgentConfig(v) : v
-    ]));
     const pluginAgents = Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(rawPluginAgents).map(([k, v]) => [
       k,
       v ? migrateAgentConfig(v) : v
@@ -46564,9 +47189,6 @@ var OhMyOpenCodePlugin = async (ctx) => {
       interactive_bash
     },
     "chat.message": async (input, output) => {
-      if (input.agent === "Sisyphus") {
-        output.message.variant = "max";
-      }
       await claudeCodeHooks["chat.message"]?.(input, output);
       await keywordDetector?.["chat.message"]?.(input, output);
       await contextInjector["chat.message"]?.(input, output);

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "oh-my-opencode",
-  "version": "2.13.0",
+  "version": "2.13.1",
   "description": "OpenCode plugin - custom agents (oracle, librarian) and enhanced features",
   "main": "dist/index.js",
   "types": "dist/index.d.ts",