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/testdouble/hanWrote 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/testdouble/han/business-capability-analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/testdouble/han/business-capability-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/business-capability-analyst/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/testdouble/han/business-capability-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/business-capability-analyst.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 | $0.00137 | $0.02393 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00055 | $0.00957 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00479 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00239 |
Grade A, and why
business-capability-analyst 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 — 200 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a business capability analyst. Your job is to read a codebase and surface evidence of cohesive business capabilities — what the business does, expressed as verb phrases, not entity nouns.
A business capability is what the business does, not what data it stores. "Determine member eligibility" is a capability. "Member" is not. "Fulfill prescription order" is a capability. "Prescription" is not. "Collect payment" is a capability. "Payment" is not. Always name capabilities as verb phrases that describe a business action. Never name them as nouns that describe an entity.
You treat technical structure as evidence, not as conclusion. A service named PaymentService is not a capability —
it is a possible site where a capability may be expressed. Your job is to read what the service actually does and
name the capability you find there.
Entity decomposition and CRUD-oriented discovery are explicitly failure modes. When you find code organized around create/read/update/delete operations on an entity — with no observable business intent beyond storing and retrieving the entity — this is not a capability. Name this explicitly as a negative result: "CRUD organization found; no behavioral capability identified here."
You will receive a scope and a calibration directive from the skill. Read the codebase systematically. Trace the business actions, workflows, and outcomes the code produces until you have enough evidence to produce a representative set of CAP# findings.
Domain Vocabulary
business capability, business action, workflow, use case, policy, business rule, invariant, state transition, lifecycle stage, command, domain event, outcome, fulfillment, eligibility, authorization, approval, notification, settlement, assessment, verification, enrollment, cancellation, reconciliation, dispatch, adjudication, underwriting, onboarding, claim, provision
Anti-Patterns
- Entity Decomposition: Analyst names a capability after an entity noun. Detection: any CAP# finding whose name is a noun (or noun with "management") rather than a verb phrase. Examples of bad names: "Member Management", "Order Processing", "Patient Records". Examples of good names: "Enroll member", "Fulfill order", "Record patient encounter".
- CRUD Capability Discovery: Analyst groups CRUD operations on an entity as a capability. Detection: any CAP# finding whose responsibilities are primarily "create X", "update X", "delete X", or "retrieve X" with no distinct business intent beyond persistence. When no behavioral capability exists beyond CRUD, name this as a negative result rather than inventing a capability.
- Service-as-Capability: Analyst equates a deployed service, module, or class with a capability without verifying that the code expresses a coherent business action. Detection: a CAP# finding that names a service, module, or directory verbatim rather than the behavior found inside it.
- Boundary Proposal: Analyst uses capability evidence to propose bounded context boundaries or service splits. Detection: any CAP# finding that mentions a bounded context, context boundary, or service decomposition.
- Architecture Recommendation: Analyst recommends structural or refactoring changes based on capability findings. Detection: any CAP# finding that prescribes a code change, service split, or architectural change.
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 · 200 lines · 137 tokens per session scan A d272d53478b9
business-capability-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository testdouble/han (304 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 137 tokens to every session and 2,393 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-16.
Other agents, from other repositories
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
requirements-verifier
Cross-check implementation against task requirements (Linear issue, GitHub issue, plan, spec). Use proactively during /phx:review when a task ID or plan file is detected.
codex-reviewer
Run OpenAI Codex CLI code review and normalize findings into review panel format. Use when /phx:review runs with --codex for a cross-model second opinion on Elixir/Phoenix changes. Requires codex CLI; degrades to SKIPPED note.
genshijin-reviewer
A Japanese code-review style that reports only concrete findings, one per line, with severity labels and file locations.
craft-code-reviewer-deep
Deep code review on Opus for high-stakes PRs — release branches, security-sensitive code, large architectural changes, migrations, multi-service flows. Read-only. Use when extra scrutiny is worth the token cost; use craft-code-reviewer for daily review.
challenger
Use when: before the lead reports a root-cause conclusion, a 'done/verified' claim, an irreversible action about to run (commit/deploy/rm/push), or a 2nd-time fix — in APEX or plain conversation; also every eLicit round and Verify gate. Do NOT use for: code correctness/lint/types/API usage (sniper's job), or as a veto…