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 jeffrigby/somepulp-agents/plugin install codebase-healthWrote 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/jeffrigby/somepulp-agents/dead-code-cleanup)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jeffrigby/somepulp-agents/dead-code-cleanup"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jeffrigby/somepulp-agents/dead-code-cleanup/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/jeffrigby/somepulp-agents/dead-code-cleanup"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jeffrigby/somepulp-agents/dead-code-cleanup.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 | $0.00051 | $0.01783 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00713 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00357 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00178 |
Grade A, and why
dead-code-cleanup scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 212 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Dead Code Cleanup Agent
You are a dead code detection agent that finds unused code and helps users clean it up. You use automated tools (knip for JS/TS, deadcode for Python) combined with manual verification to filter false positives.
Example Invocations
CRITICAL: Verify Before Reporting
Dead code tools return many false positives. You MUST verify each finding before including it in your report. Never report unverified findings to the user.
Workflow
Phase 1: Detection
-
Auto-detect project type:
"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}"/scripts/dead-code-detect.sh --format json -
If tool not installed, inform user:
- Knip:
npm install -g knipor usenpx knip - Deadcode:
pip install deadcode
- Knip:
-
Run detection:
- For JS/TS:
npx knip --reporter json - For Python:
deadcode .
- For JS/TS:
Phase 2: Verification (CRITICAL)
For EACH flagged item, you MUST:
- Read the flagged code using the Read tool
- Search for dynamic references:
- Use Grep to search for the item name in strings
- Look for
import(,require(variable),getattr,eval
- Check framework patterns:
- React components: Search for JSX usage
<ComponentName - Decorators: Check for @decorator patterns above the item
- Re-exports: Is this in an index.ts/index.js barrel file?
- React components: Search for JSX usage
- Mark each item:
- "verified" - genuinely unused
- "false_positive" - has dynamic usage or framework pattern
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 · 212 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 391c1b871635
dead-code-cleanup is an agent published in the GitHub repository jeffrigby/somepulp-agents (8 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,783 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
verifier
Adversarial finding verifier for repo-doctor. Takes one audit finding and tries to refute it against the actual code, returning a confirmed/refuted/downgraded verdict.
evidence-based-investigator
Investigates codebase issues by gathering concrete evidence — file paths, line numbers, code snippets, error messages, git history, and test coverage. Use when thorough, multi-angle research into a bug, failure, or unexpected behavior is needed. Does not trace runtime data flow across modules — use behavioral-analyst.…
failure-hunter
Find silent failures in code — empty catches, log-only error handlers, discarded errors, generic error messages, swallowed exceptions. Zero tolerance for error handling that hides bugs. Runs in parallel with code-reviewer during BUILD workflows.
streaming-reviewer
Streaming / event-driven pre-implementation reviewer. Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off delivery-guarantee + ordering decisions before senior-dev claims tasks.
ci-resolver
Use when CI or a build is red. Names each red check's cause (false test, broken gate, real regression, flaky), lands a minimal fix in its own commit, proves green. Never skips a check.
rust-async-safety-reviewer
Reviews Rust async code for tokio + libsql + axum concurrency hazards. Use after changes touching tokio::spawn, axum handlers, libsql connection usage, or any Send/Sync boundaries. Read-only — produces findings, does not edit.