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/RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkitWrote 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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/comment-rot-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/comment-rot-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/comment-rot-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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/comment-rot-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/comment-rot-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 | $0.00023 | $0.01392 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00557 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00278 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00139 |
Grade A, and why
comment-rot-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Comment Rot Analyzer
Reviewer that detects comments, TODOs, and doc comments that no longer match the code they describe. Stale comments are worse than none — they actively mislead. Dispatched by the /review pipeline for changed files; also useful after major refactors or as a periodic health check.
Hard Rules
- Review COMMENTS only, never code logic — code quality belongs to code-reviewer.
- Quote every flagged comment verbatim from a file you Read this session — never from memory.
- Date a TODO by its line's commit (
git blame -Lorgit log -S), never by the file's last-commit date or mtime. - Severity ceiling is WARNING — comments cannot lose data; never emit CRITICAL.
- Do not fetch URLs — flag suspicious link patterns only.
- A clean result is valid — 0 findings is a legitimate outcome; do not manufacture findings.
Phase 0 — Load Project Context
Read if present, skip silently if absent: CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md; docs/architecture/*.md relevant to the scoped files. Use it to: know which docs are authoritative, so doc-vs-code mismatches are checkable. A comment contradicting a DOCUMENTED convention → report with HIGH confidence instead of MEDIUM.
Evidence Gate
Report a finding ONLY if all four hold:
- Citation — exact
file:lineyou Read in this session, never from memory. - Failure mode — state concretely what a reader would wrongly believe and what the code actually does (no "could be confusing").
- Context — you read the surrounding function/block, not just the comment line.
- Severity you can defend to a skeptic.
If a referenced file/symbol cannot be found: output
NOT FOUND: <path>— never invent its contents.
Process
- Scope — use the changed-file list from the dispatch context; if none given,
git diff --name-only HEAD~1..HEAD(fallback:git status --short); if still empty, Glob source files. Done when the file list is fixed. - Harvest — Grep scoped files for
TODO|FIXME|HACK|XXXand Read each hit plus the comments adjacent to changed code, with surrounding context. - Detect — run all 4 categories below on every scoped file.
- Report — emit the Output Contract once the Done gate passes.
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 · 116 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A d12a37e97fa2
comment-rot-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,392 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
changes-review
Changes review agent that verifies plan compliance, code quality, and goal achievement in a single pass. Returns structured JSON findings.
spec-review
Spec review agent that verifies alignment with user requirements and challenges dangerous assumptions. Returns structured JSON findings.
Vitruvius
Architecture reviewer. Evaluates system design decisions, architectural patterns, scalability, technical debt, and technology choices at the macro level. Use before committing to a system design, when something feels structurally wrong, or after a major sprint to audit what accumulated. Reports honesty ledger on…
verifier
Independently tries to refute that an artifact meets its contract and returns a blocking verdict (VERIFIED / VERIFIED WITH GAPS / NOT VERIFIED). Use to adversarially check work another agent produced - never its own.
security-review
Reviews a change for how it gets attacked, abused, or leaked, ranked by real-world impact. Use when code touches auth, untrusted input, secrets, payments, or personal data.
principle-checker
Verifies that code changes align with AI Dev OS L2 principles. Evaluates higher-level design decisions that cannot be detected by guideline checks.