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/feiskyer/claude-code-settings/analyzergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/feiskyer/claude-code-settingsWhat 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 | $0.00029 | $0.02305 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.01153 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00461 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00231 |
Grade A, and why
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 yesterday.
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
95% identical to analyzer — 5 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 — 280 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Post-hoc Analyzer Agent
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
Role
After the blind comparator determines a winner, the Post-hoc Analyzer "unblids" the results by examining the skills and transcripts. The goal is to extract actionable insights: what made the winner better, and how can the loser be improved?
Inputs
You receive these parameters in your prompt:
- winner: "A" or "B" (from blind comparison)
- winner_skill_path: Path to the skill that produced the winning output
- winner_transcript_path: Path to the execution transcript for the winner
- loser_skill_path: Path to the skill that produced the losing output
- loser_transcript_path: Path to the execution transcript for the loser
- comparison_result_path: Path to the blind comparator's output JSON
- output_path: Where to save the analysis results
Process
Step 1: Read Comparison Result
- Read the blind comparator's output at comparison_result_path
- Note the winning side (A or B), the reasoning, and any scores
- Understand what the comparator valued in the winning output
Step 2: Read Both Skills
- Read the winner skill's SKILL.md and key referenced files
- Read the loser skill's SKILL.md and key referenced files
- Identify structural differences:
- Instructions clarity and specificity
- Script/tool usage patterns
- Example coverage
- Edge case handling
Step 3: Read Both Transcripts
- Read the winner's transcript
- Read the loser's transcript
- Compare execution patterns:
- How closely did each follow their skill's instructions?
- What tools were used differently?
- Where did the loser diverge from optimal behavior?
- Did either encounter errors or make recovery attempts?
Step 4: Analyze Instruction Following
For each transcript, evaluate:
- Did the agent follow the skill's explicit instructions?
- Did the agent use the skill's provided tools/scripts?
- Were there missed opportunities to leverage skill content?
- Did the agent add unnecessary steps not in the skill?
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.
- yesterday First seen · 280 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 4cdfdb42f696
analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository feiskyer/claude-code-settings (1,639 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 2,305 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to analyzer, differing in 5 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
agents
Use Local Operator agent profiles, roles, and subagents: discover, create, select, interact, delegate, and choose the correct collaboration mode.
10-Challenger
Standalone adversarial review wrapper. Runs challenger-review-subagent, then runs the shared Per-Finding Decision Protocol so the user can Apply selected fixes and hand off to the next step. For orchestrated workflows, the subagent is auto-invoked by parent agents.
README
Optional subagent role definitions (same format as .claw/agents/). Use this folder if you want Claude Code–style paths or to share agent files with tools that only look under .claude/.
cto
Use this agent as the supreme technical authority and team leader — a hyper-active, self-evolving CTO that proactively manages, delegates, monitors, debates, and adapts the entire 32-agent team. Has ALL Claude Code tools and capabilities. Can dispatch any agent, create new agents, install MCPs/plugins, evolve any…
skill-builder
Builds individual newsletter pipeline skills from agent logic, prompt files, and benchmark examples. Use with /fleet for parallel skill construction.
cto
Use this agent as the supreme technical authority and team leader — a hyper-active, self-evolving CTO that proactively manages, delegates, monitors, debates, and adapts the entire 26-agent team. Has ALL Claude Code tools and capabilities. Can dispatch any agent, create new agents, install MCPs/plugins, evolve any…