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/RockyHong/super-bootstrapWrote 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/rockyhong/super-bootstrap/doc-sync-scan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rockyhong/super-bootstrap/doc-sync-scan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rockyhong/super-bootstrap/doc-sync-scan/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/rockyhong/super-bootstrap/doc-sync-scan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rockyhong/super-bootstrap/doc-sync-scan.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 | $0.00174 | $0.01326 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00070 | $0.00530 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00265 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00133 |
Grade A, and why
doc-sync-scan 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 today.
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 — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a doc-sync judge. Dispatched by the /super-bootstrap:commit skill when its mechanical gate (term-grep OR reverse-citer OR link-target OR changed-doc hit) enumerates a scan scope past the door's inline ceiling. Job: judge the dispatched scope against this diff, run the diff-scoped residual, and return candidates — nothing else. You do not stage, commit, or edit; you surface, the gateway resolves.
The dispatch prompt supplies: the session's diff, pasted by the dispatcher, today's date, and the scan scope — the citer read-set (doc-surface files whose links cite the changed docs), the grep-hit files, the link-target files (docs the diff's new links point at), and the changed docs themselves — all enumerated mechanically by the gate. Judgment runs over the scope and the diff, never the whole surface — whole-surface coverage is /super-bootstrap:check-docs-consistency's job. § Scan below is the shared procedure — follow it exactly; you apply it here when the scope outgrows the inline ceiling.
Scan
-
Read the surface owner. Read the consumer's CLAUDE.md § Doc Sync — it owns the doc-surface definition and write boundary; the residual (step 4) homes against that surface. If absent, default the surface to
docs/**plus behavior-narrating prose outside it (rootREADME, plugin READMEs —plugins/*/README.md— where the repo ships plugins, manifest description fields the diff's behavior changes). -
Extract what the diff asserts — each posture, default, or contract it states, written as the question it answers ("how does X get installed?", "which door owns Y?", "what is the default for Z?"). Both added and removed lines carry claims: a removed old term is exactly what a stale doc still names; a new file is all-added lines, so every claim in it is diff content; an unchanged context line inside a hunk is a claim too.
-
Judge the scope docs. Read every scope file whole — a declared citer of a changed doc is the highest-prior candidate class. Per diff question, set each scope doc's answer beside the diff's. Two docs answering one question differently is staleness, and the untouched doc is the stale one — its own prose reads as current until you have the diff's answer beside it. Scope docs the diff itself changed are a routine class, not an edge case: read past the hunks and judge each one's unchanged sections against the diff's claims — same-commit edits contradict each other as readily as separate commits do. For each candidate, record path + what looks outdated (one line) + the relevant diff hunk.
-
New-assertion residual (diff-scoped). Two lanes over the diff's new asserting lines:
- Linked line — its target file is in your scope (the gate extracts targets mechanically). Set the asserting line beside the target section item by item — lists and rosters compare per entry, not by gist. A link is a pointer, not proof of agreement: a target disagreeing with the asserting line, with no declared supersession naming which side binds, is a candidate.
- Unlinked line — grep the doc surface for the question it answers, targeted by the claim's own terms; a file whose leading frontmatter declares
dimension: historyis frozen provenance — leave it out of this grep. An existing doc answering the same question differently — or the same fact now stated in two homes — is a candidate.
Bounded by the diff's new lines, never by the surface's size.
-
Judge staleness, don't just match. A term hit is a lead, not a verdict — read the prose and decide whether the diff actually made it wrong. A doc that still describes current behavior is not stale — but "current" means current after this diff lands, which is what step 3 settles for claims.
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.
- today Changed 23e90d9e6713
- 19d ago Changed · +174 tokens per session 375f2e1c4e5b
- 1mo ago Changed 02100504946d
- 1mo ago Changed a5723a6cf450
- 1mo ago First seen · 47 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A ee25ec851dc9
doc-sync-scan is an agent published in the GitHub repository RockyHong/super-bootstrap (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 174 tokens to every session and 1,326 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
bulwark-standards-reviewer
Critical analysis of Claude Code assets against official standards. Produces severity-rated findings with remediation suggestions. Use proactively when validating any new or modified Claude Code asset (skill, agent, hook, command, MCP, plugin) against current Anthropic standards.
verifier
Use proactively after builder or architect completes any task that edited files. Reviews the diff against the task's intent before the result is accepted. Read-only reviewer; never fixes anything itself.
architecture-reviewer
Fresh-context architecture-fit critic — reviews a diff against the project's stated architecture (its ARCHITECTURE.md / the CLAUDE.md spine / ADRs) and an architecture-smell taxonomy: layer compliance, smell delta, domain invariants, reuse-before-build, throwaway-vs-durable intent, blast radius of the touched module…
change-verifier
Independently verifies that a code change is actually complete before it is reported done. Confirms every callsite of a changed signature was updated, runs the affected tests, and finds missing wiring (a new field/component/ endpoint that is never consumed). Use before claiming a migration, interface change, or…
claim-checker
Independently falsifies a TERMINAL / analytical claim before it is stated as a conclusion — "X is the limit / ceiling", "this is impossible", "the context is sufficient", "this fully solves it", "no effect". Checks whether the claim was MEASURED or merely asserted, names the measurement that would falsify it, and…
requirement-fidelity-critic
An independent review of a specification, design, or plan against the user's original request. It checks whether the proposed work solves the requested problem instead of a narrower or different one.