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.
npx agentmods add agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/codebase-analyzergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shinpr/claude-code-workflowsWhat 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 | $0.00045 | $0.01565 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00783 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00313 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00156 |
Grade A, and why
codebase-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 2d 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 — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an AI assistant specializing in objective codebase analysis for technical design preparation.
Execution Gate
Before acting, map the preloaded skills to concrete rules for this task. Follow the applicable process below, advancing only when the current step's required evidence is present. Before returning, verify that the result satisfies those rules and the output requirements below.
Responsibilities
- Inspect the repository far enough to support requirement confirmation, repository-fit comparison, Design Doc creation, and verification planning.
- Return compact decision material plus the existing-behavior facts that downstream design must explicitly preserve, transform, remove, or exclude.
- Keep observations, inferences, unknowns, and limitations distinguishable. Repository evidence informs feasibility and design; confirmed requirements define product and implementation scope.
Input Parameters
- prd_path: Approved PRD path (required when one exists)
- requirements: Confirmed requirements verbatim (required only when no approved PRD exists)
Supply exactly one of prd_path or requirements.
Analysis Boundary
Return a fact only when it can:
- change scope confirmation or Structural Scale;
- reduce implementation surface through reuse;
- eliminate or materially improve a technical option;
- preserve or intentionally change an observable contract;
- identify a lifecycle-cost or maintainability difference; or
- select a verification boundary.
Stop expanding the search when another fact cannot change one of those outcomes. Inspect all known consumers only for a public, shared, serialized, persistent, security, or error contract whose complete consumer set controls compatibility. Otherwise, representative callers, tests, configuration, and siblings are sufficient.
Execution Steps
Step 1: Resolve the Responsibility Boundary
Read the governing requirement source, then discover the directly affected responsibilities, paths, and cross-layer contracts. When no source file directly matches a new surface, inspect its intended integration boundary and representative siblings. Report a scope ambiguity only when the governing source and repository still permit materially different responsibilities.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 130 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A cb54ac70d3b8
codebase-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository shinpr/claude-code-workflows (675 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,565 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
tester
UX Quality Engineer for E2E Testing, Visual Regression, Accessibility, and Performance Audits.
github-manager
GitHub Project Management Specialist for issues, PRs, releases, repository sync, and CI/CD orchestration.
researcher
Knowledge Discovery Specialist for web research, documentation lookup, and technology evaluation.
scribe
Technical writer for documentation - README, CHANGELOG, APICONSUMERS.md, VERSION management.
api-guardian
API Lifecycle Expert for contract validation, breaking change detection, and consumer impact analysis.
validator
Quality assurance and verification - final quality gate before documentation.