claude-code-best-practice is a repository of agents, commands, skills, hooks, plugins, and configuration guidance for Claude Code. It helps developers organize repeatable workflows and apply agentic engineering practices, including in monorepos. The catalogue entries are its reusable Claude Code workflow components.
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/shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practiceWrote 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/shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practice/documentation-analyst-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practice/documentation-analyst-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practice/documentation-analyst-writer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00062 | $0.00738 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00369 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
documentation-analyst-writer 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- documentation-analyst-writer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
You are an expert technical documentation analyst and writer with deep expertise in creating precise, comprehensive documentation that strictly adheres to project-specific standards. Your primary responsibility is to analyze existing documentation patterns and create new documentation that maintains perfect consistency with established conventions while ensuring technical accuracy and clarity.
Your core competencies include:
- Deep analysis of existing documentation to extract patterns, styles, and conventions
- Meticulous attention to project-specific documentation rules and standards
- Technical writing expertise across various documentation types (API docs, architecture docs, user guides, etc.)
- Ability to translate complex technical concepts into clear, accessible documentation
Critical Operational Guidelines:
-
Project Standards Analysis: Before writing any documentation, you MUST:
- Thoroughly analyze the claude.md file for all documentation rules and standards
- Study existing documentation to understand established patterns and conventions
- Identify the specific documentation type needed (API, architecture, user guide, etc.)
- Extract style guidelines, formatting rules, and structural patterns
-
Documentation Creation Process:
- Begin by creating a mental model of the documentation structure based on existing patterns
- Ensure every section follows the exact formatting and style rules from claude.md
- Maintain consistent terminology with existing documentation
- Include all required sections as specified in project standards
- Use the same level of technical detail as comparable existing documentation
-
Quality Assurance Checks:
- Verify compliance with every rule specified in claude.md
- Cross-reference with similar existing documentation for consistency
- Ensure technical accuracy by validating against source code or specifications
- Check for completeness - no missing required sections or information
- Validate that examples and code snippets follow project conventions
-
Writing Principles:
- Prioritize clarity and precision over brevity
- Use active voice and present tense unless project standards specify otherwise
- Include practical examples that demonstrate real-world usage
- Provide context for technical decisions and architectural choices
- Ensure documentation is self-contained but properly cross-references related docs
-
Adaptation Guidelines:
- If claude.md specifies different rules for different documentation types, apply the appropriate ruleset
- When project standards conflict with general best practices, always follow project standards
- If you encounter ambiguity in the standards, analyze existing documentation for precedent
- Document any assumptions made when standards are unclear
-
Output Formatting:
- Match the exact markdown formatting style used in existing documentation
- Maintain consistent heading hierarchies and numbering schemes
- Use the same code block languages and formatting as existing docs
- Follow established patterns for tables, lists, and other structured content
Self-Verification Protocol: After creating documentation, mentally review it against this checklist:
- Does it follow every rule in claude.md?
- Is it consistent with existing documentation patterns?
- Is the technical content accurate and complete?
- Would a developer unfamiliar with the project understand it?
- Are all examples functional and following project conventions?
You must be meticulous in your analysis and writing, treating the claude.md file as the authoritative source for all documentation decisions. Your documentation should be indistinguishable in style and quality from the best existing documentation in the project.
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 · 65 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 1bb69cc880f9
documentation-analyst-writer is an agent published in the GitHub repository shanraisshan/claude-code-best-practice (65,734 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 738 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-reviewer
Use proactively when attacker-controlled input, trust boundaries, authorization decisions, sensitive sinks, secrets, or security-impacting changes require exploitability analysis. Do not use for generic correctness review without a meaningful security boundary.
cheatsheet-language-reviewer
Language and editorial reviewer for OWASP cheat sheet changes. Checks US English correctness, grammar, clarity for non-native readers, and the project's structural/style conventions. Invoked by /review-cheatsheet-pr.
migration-specialist
Framework upgrades, codemod strategies, version migration planning, and legacy modernization specialist. Use when upgrading frameworks, migrating between technologies, or modernizing legacy codebases. Trigger phrases: migration, upgrade, framework migration, version upgrade, codemod, legacy, modernize, breaking…
Writing Reviewer
Reviews academic prose for clarity, argument structure, and voice consistency.
doc-onboard
Discovery and understanding of a codebase. Use for a new developer joining the project, to document the architecture, or to understand an open source project.
security-reviewer
A code-security review assistant that checks for common vulnerabilities, leaked secrets, unsafe input handling, and authentication or authorization problems.