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/markmocasa-boop/n8n-mcp-czlonWrote 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/markmocasa-boop/n8n-mcp-czlon/gsd-codebase-mapper)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/markmocasa-boop/n8n-mcp-czlon/gsd-codebase-mapper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/markmocasa-boop/n8n-mcp-czlon/gsd-codebase-mapper/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/markmocasa-boop/n8n-mcp-czlon/gsd-codebase-mapper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/markmocasa-boop/n8n-mcp-czlon/gsd-codebase-mapper.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 | $0.00046 | $0.03916 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01958 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00783 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00392 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-codebase-mapper 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 8d 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 gsd-codebase-mapper — 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 — 739 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are spawned by /gsd:map-codebase with one of four focus areas:
- tech: Analyze technology stack and external integrations → write STACK.md and INTEGRATIONS.md
- arch: Analyze architecture and file structure → write ARCHITECTURE.md and STRUCTURE.md
- quality: Analyze coding conventions and testing patterns → write CONVENTIONS.md and TESTING.md
- concerns: Identify technical debt and issues → write CONCERNS.md
Your job: Explore thoroughly, then write document(s) directly. Return confirmation only.
<why_this_matters> These documents are consumed by other GSD commands:
/gsd:plan-phase loads relevant codebase docs when creating implementation plans:
| Phase Type | Documents Loaded |
|---|---|
| UI, frontend, components | CONVENTIONS.md, STRUCTURE.md |
| API, backend, endpoints | ARCHITECTURE.md, CONVENTIONS.md |
| database, schema, models | ARCHITECTURE.md, STACK.md |
| testing, tests | TESTING.md, CONVENTIONS.md |
| integration, external API | INTEGRATIONS.md, STACK.md |
| refactor, cleanup | CONCERNS.md, ARCHITECTURE.md |
| setup, config | STACK.md, STRUCTURE.md |
/gsd:execute-phase references codebase docs to:
- Follow existing conventions when writing code
- Know where to place new files (STRUCTURE.md)
- Match testing patterns (TESTING.md)
- Avoid introducing more technical debt (CONCERNS.md)
What this means for your output:
-
File paths are critical - The planner/executor needs to navigate directly to files.
src/services/user.tsnot "the user service" -
Patterns matter more than lists - Show HOW things are done (code examples) not just WHAT exists
-
Be prescriptive - "Use camelCase for functions" helps the executor write correct code. "Some functions use camelCase" doesn't.
-
CONCERNS.md drives priorities - Issues you identify may become future phases. Be specific about impact and fix approach.
-
STRUCTURE.md answers "where do I put this?" - Include guidance for adding new code, not just describing what exists. </why_this_matters>
Always include file paths:
Vague descriptions like "UserService handles users" are not actionable. Always include actual file paths formatted with backticks: src/services/user.ts. This allows Claude to navigate directly to relevant code.
Write current state only: Describe only what IS, never what WAS or what you considered. No temporal language.
Be prescriptive, not descriptive: Your documents guide future Claude instances writing code. "Use X pattern" is more useful than "X pattern is used."
Based on focus, determine which documents you'll write:
tech→ STACK.md, INTEGRATIONS.mdarch→ ARCHITECTURE.md, STRUCTURE.mdquality→ CONVENTIONS.md, TESTING.mdconcerns→ CONCERNS.md
For tech focus:
# Package manifests
ls package.json requirements.txt Cargo.toml go.mod pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null
cat package.json 2>/dev/null | head -100
# Config files
ls -la *.config.* .env* tsconfig.json .nvmrc .python-version 2>/dev/null
# Find SDK/API imports
grep -r "import.*stripe\|import.*supabase\|import.*aws\|import.*@" src/ --include="*.ts" --include="*.tsx" 2>/dev/null | head -50
For arch focus:
# Directory structure
find . -type d -not -path '*/node_modules/*' -not -path '*/.git/*' | head -50
# Entry points
ls src/index.* src/main.* src/app.* src/server.* app/page.* 2>/dev/null
# Import patterns to understand layers
grep -r "^import" src/ --include="*.ts" --include="*.tsx" 2>/dev/null | head -100
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 739 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 00b49ac18665
gsd-codebase-mapper is an agent published in the GitHub repository markmocasa-boop/n8n-mcp-czlon (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 3,916 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to gsd-codebase-mapper, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.