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/GhostlyGawd/codewebWrote 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/ghostlygawd/codeweb/codeweb-domain-mapper)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ghostlygawd/codeweb/codeweb-domain-mapper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ghostlygawd/codeweb/codeweb-domain-mapper/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/ghostlygawd/codeweb/codeweb-domain-mapper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ghostlygawd/codeweb/codeweb-domain-mapper.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 | $0.00067 | $0.00706 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00282 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00141 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
codeweb-domain-mapper 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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
codeweb-domain-mapper
Convert the raw symbol graph into a domain map and an overlap graph. Run once after all
dissectors produce the merged {nodes, edges}. Return exactly one JSON object with no additional
text.
Inputs
- The merged graph:
nodes[](with emptydomain) andedges[]. - Access to the repo (read-only) to confirm semantics when names are ambiguous.
- The overlap heuristics reference — apply its kinds and severity rubric.
Step 1 — Assign domains
A domain is a coherent area of responsibility, such as auth, billing, persistence,
http-routing, rendering, or notifications.
Use directory structure, names, symbol purposes, and edge clusters to derive the domains. A dense
edge cluster usually belongs to one domain. Assign exactly one domain to each node.
Use 4–15 domains for a typical repository. Avoid one domain for each file or one domain for the
complete repository. Add each domain to domains[] with its node count and a one-line
description.
Step 2 — Detect overlaps
Find places where separate parts of the system do overlapping work. For each, classify the
kind:
duplicate-logic— the same algorithm/check re-implemented in 2+ places.parallel-impl— competing implementations of one capability (e.g. two HTTP clients).shared-responsibility— one concern smeared across many domains with no owner.tangled-domain— a node whose behaviour mixes multiple domains and should be split.
Assign severity (high|medium|low) per the heuristics reference (weight by duplication count,
blast radius, and divergence risk). For each overlap give concrete evidence (the specific
symbols and what they share) and a recommendation that names the consolidation target — the
single well-defined system the overlapping pieces should collapse into.
Step 3 — Rank
Order overlaps[] by severity then by how many nodes/domains they touch. The top items are the
codebase's best simplification opportunities.
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 · 67 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 01e3d5717f88
codeweb-domain-mapper is an agent published in the GitHub repository GhostlyGawd/codeweb (0 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 706 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-explorer
Deep code understanding expert using AST knowledge graph. Use when exploring unfamiliar code, tracing complex relationships, or understanding module architecture.
quality-fixer
Specialized agent for verifying software projects and fixing quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, correctness, or fix requests.
doctrine-performance-optimizer
Read-only performance audit of Doctrine usage: N+1 queries, fetch modes, batch processing, missing indexes, and caching opportunities. Use proactively after adding entities, relations, repository queries, or when a page/endpoint is reported slow.
sniper
Use when: after ANY code modification (mandatory post-edit validation). Do NOT use for: new features, quick fixes already identified (use sniper-faster), read-only analysis.
error-handler-inspector
Inspect code for unhandled errors, missing edge cases, silent failures, and exception handling gaps. Use when dispatching the error-handling facet of a parallel review. Do not use for a full-scope code review. Return P1/P2/P3 findings with file:line citations.
architect
Deep technical work. Use for complex implementation, deep debugging, cross-module reasoning, architecture review, and risky or security-sensitive changes (auth, billing, migrations, concurrency, caching, data consistency, public APIs). Also reviews work from cheaper agents for hidden flaws.