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/eveld/claudeWrote 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/eveld/claude/codebase-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/eveld/claude/codebase-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/eveld/claude/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/eveld/claude/codebase-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/eveld/claude/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 | $0.00044 | $0.00932 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00373 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00093 |
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
97% identical to codebase-analyzer — 7 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 — 121 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 · 121 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A c937bf253978
codebase-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository eveld/claude (10 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 932 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to codebase-analyzer, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
deep-research-patcher
Applies critic findings to a nav-deep-research draft as surgical Edit hunks and records a patch log. Tool-locked so it cannot regenerate the report. Spawned once at step 5 by the nav-deep-research skill.
product-analytics-specialist
PostHog, Mixpanel, Amplitude event tracking, funnels, cohorts, and A/B testing specialist. Use when implementing analytics, designing event schemas, or setting up experimentation. Trigger phrases: analytics, tracking, PostHog, Mixpanel, Amplitude, Segment, events, funnel, cohort, A/B test, feature flag, conversion…
migration-specialist
Framework upgrades, codemod strategies, version migration planning, and legacy modernization specialist. Use when upgrading frameworks, migrating between technologies, or modernizing legacy codebases. Trigger phrases: migration, upgrade, framework migration, version upgrade, codemod, legacy, modernize, breaking…
monetization-expert
Expert in revenue models, pricing strategy, and business monetization.
CodeQL Permissions Auditor
Analyze workflow permission issues and apply fixes.
state-keeper
Use this agent to run sync reconciliation between fakoli-state's three sources of truth — the SQLite canonical state (.fakoli-state/state.db), the filesystem (packets/, .evidence-buffer/, worktrees), and git (branches, commits, claims). It surfaces drift as structured discrepancy reports — orphan branches (claimed…