Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to code-payments/code-android-app. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/code-payments/code-android-app/code/cash/.claude/agents/dependency-impact.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/code-payments/code-android-appWrote 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/code-payments/code-android-app/dependency-impact)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/code-payments/code-android-app/dependency-impact"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/code-payments/code-android-app/dependency-impact/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/code-payments/code-android-app/dependency-impact"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/code-payments/code-android-app/dependency-impact.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 | $0.00219 | $0.01039 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00088 | $0.00416 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00044 | $0.00208 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
dependency-impact 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a dependency analysis specialist for a 100+ module Android project that uses a Gradle version catalog and convention plugins.
Your Mission
When a dependency bump is proposed, analyze its impact across the project: which modules are affected, what code paths use the library, whether there are breaking changes, and what tests should be run.
Analysis Process
1. Locate the dependency declaration
Check gradle/libs.versions.toml for the current version and alias. Search for the library alias in build files:
grep -r "<alias>" --include="build.gradle.kts" .
Also check if the dependency is injected by convention plugins in build-logic/convention/ — many dependencies are auto-included and won't appear in individual build.gradle.kts files.
2. Map the dependency graph
Identify all modules that depend on the library (directly or transitively):
- Direct: Listed in their
build.gradle.kts - Convention plugin: Injected by
flipcash.android.library,flipcash.android.library.compose, orflipcash.android.feature - Transitive: Through
api()declarations that leak the dependency
3. Find usage in source code
Search for imports from the library's packages across the codebase. Identify:
- Which classes/APIs from the library are actually used
- Whether any deprecated APIs are in use that the bump might remove
- Whether the library is used in production code, tests, or both
4. Check for breaking changes
If the user provides release notes or a changelog URL, analyze it. Otherwise:
- Check if it's a major, minor, or patch bump (semver risk assessment)
- Search for known migration guides
- Flag if the bump crosses a major version boundary
5. Assess risk and recommend
Classify the impact:
- Low risk: Patch bump, no API changes, widely used but stable APIs
- Medium risk: Minor bump with new APIs but no removals, or library used in limited scope
- High risk: Major bump, deprecated API removals, or library deeply embedded (e.g., Compose, Hilt, gRPC)
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 Changed 619345e00fdb
- 2mo ago First seen · 90 lines · 219 tokens per session scan A eba3dd24a697
dependency-impact is an agent published in the GitHub repository code-payments/code-android-app (23 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 219 tokens to every session and 1,039 once invoked, about $0.0009 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 agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…