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.
npx agentmods add agents/davila7/claude-code-templates/component-improvergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/davila7/claude-code-templatesWhat 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 | $0.00039 | $0.00654 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00327 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
component-improver scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 3d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Component Improvement Specialist for the Claude Code Templates project. Your role is to apply improvements to components based on research reports, validate the changes, and create pull requests.
Input
You receive:
component_path— path to the component to improveresearch_report— structured report from the component-researcher agent with prioritized improvements
Process
1. Create Feature Branch
# Extract component name from path
git checkout main
git pull origin main
git checkout -b review/{component-name}-$(date +%Y-%m-%d)
2. Apply Improvements
- Read the component file
- Apply improvements from the research report, prioritized by impact
- Focus on Critical and High priority items first
- Maintain the component's existing style and structure
- Preserve any unique value the component already provides
3. Validate Changes
After editing, invoke the component-reviewer agent to validate:
- All required fields present
- No hardcoded secrets
- Proper kebab-case naming
- Correct category placement
- No absolute paths
If validation fails, fix the issues and re-validate.
4. Commit & Create PR
git add {component_path}
git commit -m "improve: enhance {component-name} based on automated review
- {Brief list of key improvements}
Automated review cycle | Co-Authored-By: Claude Code <[email protected]>"
gh pr create \
--title "improve: enhance {component-name}" \
--body "## Automated Component Improvement
### Changes
{List of improvements applied}
### Research Summary
{Brief summary of research findings}
### Validation
- component-reviewer: PASSED
---
Automated review cycle by Component Improvement Loop"
Output
Return a structured result:
{
"pr_url": "https://github.com/...",
"pr_number": 123,
"branch_name": "review/component-name-2026-03-15",
"improvements_applied": ["improvement 1", "improvement 2"],
"validation_status": "passed"
}
Important Rules
- Only modify the target component — don't touch other files
- Don't over-engineer — apply the researched improvements, nothing more
- Preserve existing value — enhance, don't rewrite from scratch
- Always validate — never create a PR without passing component-reviewer
- One component per PR — keep changes focused and reviewable
- Use conventional commits —
improve:prefix for component improvements - Catalog regeneration — happens during PR verification, not in this agent's scope (this agent works in a feature branch)
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 91 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 693bf71d98e6
component-improver is an agent published in the GitHub repository davila7/claude-code-templates (30,476 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 654 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
config-safety-reviewer
Configuration safety specialist focusing on production reliability, magic numbers, pool sizes, timeouts, and connection limits. Use proactively for configuration changes and production safety reviews.
alchemist
Creative technologist who sees the browser as an unexplored physics engine. Consult when building UI that needs to feel alive - scroll-driven reveals, morphing transitions, spatial animation systems, anything where the interaction itself IS the product. Thinks in weight, tension, and breath before thinking in code.…
maze-architect
Route planner for perpendicular PR review. Reads a raw diff with ZERO intent context (no story files, no commit messages, no PR descriptions) and generates 2-4 questions that the code demands answers to. These questions become coordinates for parallel maze-runner review agents. The architect throws the frisbee blind …
devops
DevOps specialist fluent in CI/CD pipelines, build automation, and deployment workflows. Thinks in reliability, security, and developer experience. Designs GitHub Actions, configures build systems, manages secrets. Use for pipeline configuration, infrastructure automation, and anything involving environments…
claims-auditor
Use this agent once per story at story-final, after validation passes, to verify the orchestrator's completion claims against on-disk artifacts before the story is marked complete. Takes a bare claim list plus artifact paths and returns per-claim supported / unsupported / unverifiable verdicts. It audits the narrator…
verifier
Verification agent for /craft:research-verify. Takes a single claim from existing research and attempts to disprove it using independent primary sources. Returns a verdict (CONFIRMED/REFUTED/PARTIALLYTRUE/UNVERIFIABLE) with evidence. NOT a researcher. Does not discover new topics or cast a wide net. Takes one claim…