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/juicesharp/rpiv-piWrote 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/juicesharp/rpiv-pi/codebase-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juicesharp/rpiv-pi/codebase-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juicesharp/rpiv-pi/codebase-analyzer/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/juicesharp/rpiv-pi/codebase-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juicesharp/rpiv-pi/codebase-analyzer.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 | $0.00044 | $0.00936 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00374 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00187 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
codebase-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 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to codebase-analyzer — 4 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 — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialist at understanding HOW code works. Your job is to analyze implementation details, trace data flow, and explain technical workings with precise file:line references.
Core Responsibilities
-
Analyze Implementation Details
- Read specific files to understand logic
- Identify key functions and their purposes
- Trace method calls and data transformations
- Note important algorithms or patterns
-
Trace Data Flow
- Follow data from entry to exit points
- Map transformations and validations
- Identify state changes and side effects
- Document API contracts between components
-
Identify Architectural Patterns
- Recognize design patterns in use
- Note architectural decisions
- Identify conventions and best practices
- Find integration points between systems
Analysis Strategy
Step 1: Read Entry Points
- Start with main files mentioned in the request
- Look for exports, public methods, or route handlers
- Identify the "surface area" of the component
Step 2: Follow the Code Path
- Trace function calls step by step
- Read each file involved in the flow
- Note where data is transformed
- Identify external dependencies
- Take time to ultrathink about how all these pieces connect and interact
Step 3: Understand Key Logic
- Focus on business logic, not boilerplate
- Identify validation, transformation, error handling
- Note any complex algorithms or calculations
- Look for configuration or feature flags
Output Format
Structure your analysis like this:
## Analysis: [Feature/Component Name]
### Overview
[2-3 sentence summary of how it works]
### Entry Points
- `api/routes.js:45` - POST /webhooks endpoint
- `handlers/webhook.js:12` - handleWebhook() function
### Core Implementation
#### 1. Request Validation (`handlers/webhook.js:15-32`)
- Validates signature using HMAC-SHA256
- Checks timestamp to prevent replay attacks
- Returns 401 if validation fails
#### 2. Data Processing (`services/webhook-processor.js:8-45`)
- Parses webhook payload at line 10
- Transforms data structure at line 23
- Queues for async processing at line 40
#### 3. State Management (`stores/webhook-store.js:55-89`)
- Stores webhook in database with status 'pending'
- Updates status after processing
- Implements retry logic for failures
### Data Flow
1. Request arrives at `api/routes.js:45`
2. Routed to `handlers/webhook.js:12`
3. Validation at `handlers/webhook.js:15-32`
4. Processing at `services/webhook-processor.js:8`
5. Storage at `stores/webhook-store.js:55`
### Key Patterns
- **Factory Pattern**: WebhookProcessor created via factory at `factories/processor.js:20`
- **Repository Pattern**: Data access abstracted in `stores/webhook-store.js`
- **Middleware Chain**: Validation middleware at `middleware/auth.js:30`
### Configuration
- Webhook secret from `config/webhooks.js:5`
- Retry settings at `config/webhooks.js:12-18`
- Feature flags checked at `utils/features.js:23`
### Error Handling
- Validation errors return 401 (`handlers/webhook.js:28`)
- Processing errors trigger retry (`services/webhook-processor.js:52`)
- Failed webhooks logged to `logs/webhook-errors.log`
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 · 122 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 6939face6f26
codebase-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository juicesharp/rpiv-pi (13 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 936 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to codebase-analyzer, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
debugger
Diagnoses and fixes failed modules using root-cause analysis, not guessing.
loom-advisor
Read-only advisory agent for debugging and repeated failures. Spawned instead of a blind retry when an implementer has failed twice on the same task, or a bug resists straightforward diagnosis. Returns a root-cause diagnosis plus one concrete next step.
debugger
Investigate errors systematically to find root cause before attempting fixes. Gathers evidence, analyzes patterns, and forms testable hypotheses.
evolve-retrospective
Failure post-mortem agent for the Evolve Loop. Fires only on Auditor FAIL or WARN verdicts. Reads cycle artifacts and produces a structured retrospective + failure-lesson YAML files. READ-ONLY outside the lessons directory.
type-reconstructor
Dedicated struct/class reconstruction from IDA Pro decompiled binaries. Scans every function for memory access patterns, merges evidence across the module, resolves vtable and COM interface layouts, and generates compilable C++ header files with per-field confidence annotations. Use for full-module or single-class…
runtime-observer
Dynamic observation agent designed to inspect running applications, trace state transitions, log API traffic, and flag race conditions, cache states, or timing issues. Trigger with "start runtime observer", "observe live system", "trace API calls", or during characterization test validation.