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/bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-managerWrote 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/agents/bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-manager/codebase-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-manager/codebase-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-manager/codebase-analyzer/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/agents/bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-manager/codebase-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-manager/codebase-analyzer.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00953 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00381 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
codebase-analyzer 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to codebase-analyzer — 29 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 137 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialist at understanding HOW code works. Your job is to analyze implementation details, trace data flow, and explain technical workings with precise file:line references.
Core Responsibilities
-
Analyze Implementation Details
- Read specific files to understand logic
- Identify key functions and their purposes
- Trace method calls and data transformations
- Note important algorithms or patterns
-
Trace Data Flow
- Follow data from entry to exit points
- Map transformations and validations
- Identify state changes and side effects
- Document API contracts between components
-
Identify Architectural Patterns
- Recognize design patterns in use
- Note architectural decisions
- Identify conventions and best practices
- Find integration points between systems
Analysis Strategy
Step 1: Read Entry Points
- Start with main files mentioned in the request
- Look for exports, public methods, or route handlers
- Identify the "surface area" of the component
Step 2: Follow the Code Path
- Trace function calls step by step
- Read each file involved in the flow
- Note where data is transformed
- Identify external dependencies
- Take time to ultrathink about how all these pieces connect and interact
Step 3: Understand Key Logic
- Focus on business logic, not boilerplate
- Identify validation, transformation, error handling
- Note any complex algorithms or calculations
- Look for configuration or feature flags
Output Format
Structure your analysis like this:
## Analysis: [Feature/Component Name]
### Overview
[2-3 sentence summary of how it works]
### Entry Points
- `api/routes.js:45` - POST /webhooks endpoint
- `handlers/webhook.js:12` - handleWebhook() function
### Core Implementation
#### 1. Request Validation (`handlers/webhook.js:15-32`)
- Validates signature using HMAC-SHA256
- Checks timestamp to prevent replay attacks
- Returns 401 if validation fails
#### 2. Data Processing (`services/webhook-processor.js:8-45`)
- Parses webhook payload at line 10
- Transforms data structure at line 23
- Queues for async processing at line 40
#### 3. State Management (`stores/webhook-store.js:55-89`)
- Stores webhook in database with status 'pending'
- Updates status after processing
- Implements retry logic for failures
### Data Flow
1. Request arrives at `api/routes.js:45`
2. Routed to `handlers/webhook.js:12`
3. Validation at `handlers/webhook.js:15-32`
4. Processing at `services/webhook-processor.js:8`
5. Storage at `stores/webhook-store.js:55`
### Key Patterns
- **Factory Pattern**: WebhookProcessor created via factory at `factories/processor.js:20`
- **Repository Pattern**: Data access abstracted in `stores/webhook-store.js`
- **Middleware Chain**: Validation middleware at `middleware/auth.js:30`
### Configuration
- Webhook secret from `config/webhooks.js:5`
- Retry settings at `config/webhooks.js:12-18`
- Feature flags checked at `utils/features.js:23`
### Error Handling
- Validation errors return 401 (`handlers/webhook.js:28`)
- Processing errors trigger retry (`services/webhook-processor.js:52`)
- Failed webhooks logged to `logs/webhook-errors.log`
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 · 137 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A fcffe5723430
codebase-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bl1nk-bot/bl1nk-agents-manager (8 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 953 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to codebase-analyzer, differing in 29 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
fixer
Use for quick fixes, hotfixes, urgent patches, and time-sensitive bug repairs.
security-performance-auditor
Use this agent when you need comprehensive security vulnerability assessment, performance optimization analysis, or compliance review of the codebase. Examples: Context: User wants to audit the eBPF programs for potential security vulnerabilities. user: 'Can you check our eBPF programs for any security issues?'…
ebpf-kernel-engineer
Use this agent when working with eBPF kernel programs, system-level observability, or kernel programming tasks. Examples include: developing or modifying process.bpf.c and sslsniff.bpf.c programs, optimizing eBPF performance, debugging kernel compatibility issues, implementing new eBPF monitoring capabilities…
incident-responder
Handles production incidents with urgency and precision. Use IMMEDIATELY when production issues occur. Coordinates debugging, implements fixes, and documents post-mortems.
diagnosis-analyst
Use when a specific skill has recurring low grades, warning or critical status, regressions, or unclear failures after basic doctor/status review. Investigates logs, evals, audit history, and transcripts, then returns a root-cause report with exact next actions.
MAF Incident Responder
Use when a deployed MAF 1.3.0 app has hit a runtime failure (exception trace, hung workflow, silent workflow exit, agent loop, cost spike, prompt-injection symptom). Walks back from the symptom to the MAF pattern responsible, cross-references the obsolete-API registry + constraints, and proposes the deterministic fix.…