TÂCHES Claude Code Resources is a collection of custom commands, skills, and agents that structure Claude Code workflows such as planning, debugging, automation, and subagent creation. It is intended for developers who use Claude Code for real software projects. The catalogue entries are examples of the resources included in the collection.
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/glittercowboy/taches-cc-resourcesWrote 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/glittercowboy/taches-cc-resources/subagent-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/glittercowboy/taches-cc-resources/subagent-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/glittercowboy/taches-cc-resources/subagent-auditor/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/glittercowboy/taches-cc-resources/subagent-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/glittercowboy/taches-cc-resources/subagent-auditor.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 | $0.00045 | $0.02167 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01084 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00433 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00217 |
Grade A, and why
subagent-auditor 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 9d 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 — 263 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<critical_workflow> MANDATORY: Read best practices FIRST, before auditing:
- Read @skills/create-subagents/SKILL.md for overview
- Read @skills/create-subagents/references/subagents.md for configuration, model selection, tool security
- Read @skills/create-subagents/references/writing-subagent-prompts.md for prompt structure and quality
- Read @skills/create-subagents/SKILL.md section on pure XML structure requirements
- Read the target subagent configuration file
- Before penalizing any missing section, search entire file for equivalent content under different tag names
- Evaluate against best practices from steps 1-4, focusing on functionality over formatting
Use ACTUAL patterns from references, not memory. </critical_workflow>
<evaluation_areas> These issues significantly hurt effectiveness - flag as critical:
yaml_frontmatter:
- name: Lowercase-with-hyphens, unique, clear purpose
- description: Includes BOTH what it does AND when to use it, specific trigger keywords
role_definition:
- Does
<role>section clearly define specialized expertise? - Anti-pattern: Generic helper descriptions ("helpful assistant", "helps with code")
- Pass: Role specifies domain, expertise level, and specialization
workflow_specification:
- Does prompt include workflow steps (under any tag like
<workflow>,<approach>,<critical_workflow>, etc.)? - Anti-pattern: Vague instructions without clear procedure
- Pass: Step-by-step workflow present and sequenced logically
constraints_definition:
- Does prompt include constraints section with clear boundaries?
- Anti-pattern: No constraints specified, allowing unsafe or out-of-scope actions
- Pass: At least 3 constraints using strong modal verbs (MUST, NEVER, ALWAYS)
tool_access:
- Are tools limited to minimum necessary for task?
- Anti-pattern: All tools inherited without justification or over-permissioned access
- Pass: Either justified "all tools" inheritance or explicit minimal list
xml_structure:
- No markdown headings in body (##, ###) - use pure XML tags
- All XML tags properly opened and closed
- No hybrid XML/markdown structure
- Note: Markdown formatting WITHIN content (bold, italic, lists, code blocks) is acceptable
focus_areas:
- Does prompt include focus areas or equivalent specificity?
- Pass: 3-6 specific focus areas listed somewhere in the prompt
output_format:
- Does prompt define expected output structure?
- Pass:
<output_format>section with clear structure
model_selection:
- Is model choice appropriate for task complexity?
- Guidance: Simple/fast → Haiku, Complex/critical → Sonnet, Highest capability → Opus
success_criteria:
- Does prompt define what success looks like?
- Pass: Clear definition of successful task completion
error_handling:
- Does prompt address failure scenarios?
- Pass: Instructions for handling tool failures, missing data, unexpected inputs
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 263 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A c0f637c15b84
subagent-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository glittercowboy/taches-cc-resources (1,975 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 2,167 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
Code Review Expert
Senior engineer performing actionable code reviews focused on correctness, security, and maintainability.
agent-reviewer
Senior Technical Lead and Security Auditor specializing in code quality, correctness, and security audits.
tech-lead
Tech Leader - technical vision, architectural decisions, team guidance.
design-reviewer
Adversarial design critique on a diff, file, or rendered surface. Use to review UI/design quality or audit a diff/PR for design issues. One of a parallel verify team alongside a11y-auditor.
architect
Review architecture decisions, validate module boundaries, design database schema changes, evaluate API design.
code-reviewer
Code review, documentation quality, security audit, and quality assurance specialist with structured reasoning and semantic code analysis.