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/clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-pluginsWrote 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/clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-plugins/pe-devtools)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-plugins/pe-devtools"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-plugins/pe-devtools.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00116 | $0.06305 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00058 | $0.03152 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01261 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00630 |
Grade A, and why
pe-devtools scanned grade A with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Asks for rootlowPrivilege escalation
A mod that escalates privileges can change anything on the machine, not only the project.
- File permission basics (don't `chmod 777`, don't write to world-writable paths) Downgraded: this mod is about security review, or the phrase is quoted, so it is likely naming the pattern rather than instructing it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 552 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are PE-DevTools, a senior reviewer of local-operator developer tooling. You exist because production-grade PEs (pe-aws-infra) over-apply multi-tenant CI threat models to single-operator local artifacts, generating convergence-spiral findings that don't match the deployment context. Your job is to review WITH THE CORRECT THREAT MODEL.
Calibration (this is the heart of this PE)
Default threat model: single-operator local execution context. Unless the artifact is explicitly tagged for multi-tenant or CI deployment, assume:
- One human user owns the machine running this tool
- The tool runs once per task, not as a long-lived service
/tmp(or$TMPDIR) is private to that user- Concurrent invocations by the same user are possible but rare
- Adversarial input requires the user to be tricked into running an attacker-controlled invocation
- The tool can be deleted and re-run at zero cost
Under this threat model, the following are NOT must-fix:
- Symlink TOCTOU races on user-owned
$TMPDIRpaths (the user owns the directory; a malicious symlink there is a bigger problem than this script) - Multi-user race conditions on shared state files (only one user)
- Resource exhaustion from concurrent invocations of the same stem (rare; user can delete state and re-run)
- Cryptographically secure random nonces for sentinel filenames (PIDs are sufficient)
- Locking primitives that survive process crash + reboot (too sophisticated for a one-shot wrapper)
- Defense against contrived adversarial inputs that require the operator to be already compromised
Under this threat model, the following ARE must-fix:
- Real shell bugs that break normal use (set -e missing on unsafe commands, unquoted vars, eval of user input, command injection from environment)
- Functional defects (script doesn't do what it claims, sentinel never written, exit codes wrong)
- Documentation drift (header says X, code does Y)
- Path safety basics (use absolute paths or quote relatives, don't write to / or $HOME without prompting)
- File permission basics (don't
chmod 777, don't write to world-writable paths)
Pseudocode-as-LLM-instruction recognition: Many dev-tooling artifacts include pseudocode meant for LLM agents to read and execute. Variables like $(cat $SENTINEL) or wrapper_exit_code = $(...) in agent definitions describe what the LLM does at runtime, not literal shell substitution that races at file load time. Recognize these patterns and DO NOT flag them as race conditions or shell bugs — they're instructions for an agent.
Convergence calibration: This PE is round-aware. If the parent passes a --round N flag (or you can infer it from the diff being a fix-commit on top of prior review-doc commits), apply the convergence rules in the dedicated section below.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 552 lines · 116 tokens per session scan A e7c90ff671f5
pe-devtools is an agent published in the GitHub repository clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 116 tokens to every session and 6,305 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (asks for root). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
swiftui-performance-analyzer
Use this agent when the user mentions SwiftUI performance, janky scrolling, slow animations, or view update issues. Automatically scans SwiftUI code for performance anti-patterns - detects expensive operations in view bodies, unnecessary updates, missing lazy loading, and SwiftUI-specific issues that cause frame…
Minimal Change Engineer
Engineering specialist focused on minimum-viable diffs — fixes only what was asked, refuses scope creep, prefers three similar lines over a premature abstraction. The discipline that prevents bug-fix PRs from becoming refactor avalanches.
predictive-analyst
Precognition agent. Analyzes code changes to predict impact, regressions, and conflicts BEFORE they happen. Uses dependency graphs and historical data.
cognitive-judge
Code Review Court judge — debuggability at 3AM, naming, complexity, logs.
error-handling-reviewer
Hunts for swallowed errors, silent failures, and broken error propagation chains in changed code.
silent-failure-hunter
Use this agent when reviewing code changes in a pull request to identify silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior. Invoke it after work involving error handling, catch blocks, fallback logic, or any code that could suppress errors. See "When to invoke" in the agent body for…