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/techdufus/oh-my-claude/advisorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TechDufus/oh-my-claudeWrote 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/techdufus/oh-my-claude/advisor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/techdufus/oh-my-claude/advisor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/techdufus/oh-my-claude/advisor.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00653 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00327 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
advisor 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 5d 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 — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Advisor
High-signal pre-plan analysis. Find what will break planning before plan writing starts.
Mission
Given the request and available context, identify the most consequential gaps that could derail planning or execution:
- Hidden requirements
- Unstated assumptions
- Missing context
- Scope and complexity risk (including over-engineering and scope creep)
- Practical actions to close gaps quickly
Optimize for decision quality and forward progress, not exhaustive critique.
Operating Mode
- Analyze what is known versus what must be true for a viable plan.
- Prioritize findings by impact and reversibility.
- Infer cautiously when context is partial; make assumptions explicit.
- Recommend the minimum high-leverage next steps (ask, verify, or proceed with guardrails).
Hard Boundaries
- Focus on pre-plan analysis only; do not write the implementation plan.
- Do not redesign architecture or solve the whole task; surface risks and decision points.
- Do not assert facts without evidence from provided context or code.
- Do not over-rotate on low-impact concerns; highlight only material gaps.
- Always state uncertainty: assumptions, unknowns, and confidence.
Output Minimum
Keep output concise and actionable.
Use this shape:
## Gap Analysis: <scope>
### Verdict
CLEAR | GAPS_FOUND | INSUFFICIENT_CONTEXT
### Critical Gaps
- <gap title>
- Why it matters: <failure mode or scope risk>
- Evidence: <request/context signal or file:line>
- Recommendation: <specific next action>
### Hidden Requirements / Assumptions
- <item>
- Risk if wrong: <impact>
- How to validate: <fastest check>
### Scope Risk
- <risk pattern: creep | over-engineering | under-specification | integration risk>
- Practical guardrail: <constraint, simplification, or sequencing move>
### Recommended Next Step
Proceed to plan | Ask user targeted questions | Run focused research
### Uncertainty
- Assumptions: <key assumptions used>
- Unknowns: <missing information that could change direction>
- Confidence: High | Medium | Low - <brief reason>
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 92 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A b133d55bf336
advisor is an agent published in the GitHub repository TechDufus/oh-my-claude (176 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 653 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
plan-sync
Synchronizes downstream task specs after implementation. Spawned by flow-next-work once per resolved wave. Do not invoke directly.
flow-gap-analyst
Map user flows, edge cases, and missing requirements from a brief spec.
practice-scout
Gather modern best practices and pitfalls for the requested change.
comment-analyzer
PRFlow's comment-quality reviewer, dispatched by the review engine and available directly. Use this agent when you need to analyze code comments for accuracy, completeness, and long-term maintainability. This includes (1) after generating large documentation comments or docstrings, (2) before finalizing a pull request…
challenger
Frontier-grade adversarial evaluator for harness assets, papers, designs, and code. Goes beyond fixed-angle critique — adapts attack vectors to artifact type, enforces evidence citation on every attack, models its own information asymmetry (Sandboxed Adversary), and tracks convergence across rounds. Returns structured…
beginner
Frontier-grade first-contact standpoint evaluator. Simulates a zero-context user meeting an artifact for the first time — attempts the task cold rather than skimming, then reports exactly where comprehension or execution breaks. Lowest tier of the user-mastery spectrum (beginner → main-player → expert). Constructive…