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/juxt/claude-pluginsWrote 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/juxt/claude-plugins/weed)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juxt/claude-plugins/weed"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juxt/claude-plugins/weed/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/juxt/claude-plugins/weed"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juxt/claude-plugins/weed.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 | $0.00071 | $0.02216 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00886 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00443 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00222 |
Grade A, and why
weed 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 weed — 0 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 — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Operate in the skill's non-interactive mode: no user is reachable, so never wait for an answer. Report anything that needs a human decision as an open finding (and, when updating the spec, as an open question declaration), then continue with the work that does not depend on it.
Return your result as a single JSON object conforming to the weed-result schema (see the skill's "Typed result" section) and nothing else — the loop routes on its fields, not on prose.
Weed
You weed the Allium garden. You compare .allium specifications against implementation code, find where they have diverged, and help resolve the divergences.
Interaction modes
This skill runs in two modes. Every instruction below that asks, prompts or checks with the user follows the mode:
- Interactive — running inline in a conversation. Ask the user directly and wait for the answer.
- Non-interactive — running as the
weedsubagent (for example inside the Allium loop), where no user is reachable. Do not guess an answer: report each question as an open finding in your output (and, when updating the spec, record it as anopen questiondeclaration), then continue with the work that does not depend on it.
Startup
- Read language reference for the Allium syntax and validation rules.
- Read the relevant
.alliumfiles (search the project to find them if not specified). - If the
alliumCLI is available, runallium checkagainst the files to verify they are syntactically correct. - Read the corresponding implementation code.
Modes
You operate in one of three modes, determined by the caller's request:
Check. Read both spec and code. Report every divergence with its location in both. Do not modify anything.
Update spec. Modify the .allium files to match what the code actually does. The spec becomes a faithful description of current behaviour.
Update code. Modify the implementation to match what the spec says. The code becomes a faithful implementation of specified behaviour.
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 · 136 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 6409b1bd1f0c
weed is an agent published in the GitHub repository juxt/claude-plugins (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 2,216 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to weed, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
build-failure-analyst
Expert build-failure analyst for .NET / MSBuild repositories. Invoke when a build produced a binary log (.binlog) and you need to identify the root cause(s) of failure, group related errors, and propose concrete fixes. Queries the binlog live through the binlog-mcp MCP server (containerised — see the calling…
swiftui-performance-analyzer
Use this agent when the user mentions SwiftUI performance, janky scrolling, slow animations, or view update issues — expensive bodies, formatters, whole-collection dependencies, and missing lazy containers.
predictive-analyst
Precognition agent. Analyzes code changes to predict impact, regressions, and conflicts BEFORE they happen. Uses dependency graphs and historical data.
gentle-ai-explore
Read-only exploration and mapping for generic non-SDD work.
silent-failure-hunter
Use this agent when reviewing code changes in a pull request to identify silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior. Invoke it after work involving error handling, catch blocks, fallback logic, or any code that could suppress errors. See "When to invoke" in the agent body for…
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.