Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins/plugin install workflows-coreWrote 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/ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins/code-scanner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins/code-scanner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins/code-scanner/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/ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins/code-scanner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins/code-scanner.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 | $0.00173 | $0.03182 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00069 | $0.01273 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00636 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00318 |
Grade A, and why
code-scanner 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 24d 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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/handoff/code-scanner.md for the exact input/output document format.
Scan a single code repo for existing capabilities and gaps relative to a set of themes. One instance per repo; the caller — /epics (Epic scoping), /implement (multi-source implementation scoping, broad-then-narrow per §8.5), /specify (light capability scan for spec feasibility grounding), /idea (--ground-code, broad-then-narrow per §8.5), /docs-audit (documentation coverage enumeration, broad-then-narrow per §8.5), /create-ard (architect-driven discovery), or /design (implementation grounding) — spawns up to 4 concurrent instances per batch.
Distinction from diff-summarizer. That agent reads the diffs of the refs an implementation record names, for features already implemented; this agent reads present-day code for features being scoped. There is no diff to take — just filesystem search to understand what exists and what needs to be built.
Inputs
repo_path: <absolute path to a local clone, e.g. /workspace/<repo-name>>
repo_url_slug: <repo slug from the source URL, e.g. "cluster"; optional>
capability_themes:
- <short phrase, e.g. "Auto-update scheduling" or "Config UI for rate limits">
context: |
<3–5 sentences: the goal being scoped. For Epic writing, the PRD goal and what
the Epic-set must achieve. For /implement, the implementation goal from the
spec and what the change must accomplish.>
search_hints:
symbols: [<class / function names>]
paths: [<directory globs, e.g. "**/autoupdate/**">]
keywords: [<grep keywords>]
refresh:
switch_to_default_branch: true
pull: true # default true — capability scans target present-day code and want the
# default-branch tip. (Asymmetry with diff-summarizer, which keeps
# pull: false because it targets historical merged commits.)
Refuse to run without repo_path, at least one entry in capability_themes, and a context.
When repo_url_slug is provided, before scanning run
git -C <repo_path> remote get-url origin, strip a trailing .git, and compare
the URL's last path segment to repo_url_slug. On mismatch, return
status: REPO_MISSING with a note naming both slugs. When repo_url_slug is
absent, trust repo_path as given.
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.
- 24d ago Changed · +22 tokens per session d3de3dcfb3ce
- 28d ago Changed · +2 lines f4618584fd52
- 1mo ago Changed 152ff12de294
- 1mo ago First seen · 121 lines · 151 tokens per session scan A 40dbd2a6c77e
code-scanner is an agent published in the GitHub repository ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 173 tokens to every session and 3,182 once invoked, about $0.0007 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-reviewer
Reviews all changed files in a change set in an isolated context and returns structured findings as JSON. Spawned by the /review-gate:review orchestrator. Not for general questions.
code-resolver
Re-checks prior findings after a code fix. Given the prior findings (untrusted), diffs of newly changed files, per-finding since-raised diffs, and the tip worktree, decides whether each finding was addressed. Not for general questions.
code-filter
Independent falsify pass for review-gate findings. Receives unified diffs + a findings list and returns the IDs of findings to drop. Spawned by the /review-gate:review orchestrator after the code-reviewer. Not for general questions.
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial reviewer for specs, plans, implementations, or any combination ("spec amendment + implementation in the same PR" is the dominant case), plus two narrower branches — an RFC-only review and an intent review. Loads project conventions and the targeted artifacts; attacks along the relevant checklists; returns…
quality-engineer
Quality-lens reviewer covering testability, observability, reliability, and maintainability -- the "cost to live with this code" pass. Also drafts contract or construction tests on request. Reads effective repository guidance, the spec and plan if any, the diff, and nearby tests; flags test-shape problems (wrong…
reviewer
Review changes against spec, plan, code quality heuristics, and repo rules. Supports local (ADOS pipeline) and remote (PR/MR) modes.