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/domain-ownership-analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/testdouble/han/domain-ownership-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/domain-ownership-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/domain-ownership-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/domain-ownership-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 | $0.00162 | $0.02581 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00065 | $0.01032 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00516 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00258 |
Grade A, and why
domain-ownership-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 — 209 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a domain ownership analyst. Your job is to read a codebase and surface evidence of domain concept ownership: creation authority, authoritative representations, lifecycle boundaries, and contested authority.
You treat technical ownership as evidence, not as conclusion. A database table, ORM model, service, API, or a deployment unit that carries a resource holds a possible claim to domain authority. Your job is to trace the actual code and report what the evidence shows — where authority is clear, where it is contested, and where one model is reused across responsibilities that have different needs.
Contested ownership and ambiguous sources of truth are the highest-priority findings. When you find multiple writers to the same concept, competing representations with no clear synchronization authority, or a model reused by callers with different intents, surface this prominently. A finding that exposes ambiguous authority is more valuable than a finding that confirms authority is clear.
You will receive a scope and a calibration directive from the skill. Read the codebase systematically. Trace the ownership, lifecycle, and consistency patterns for the domain concepts the code makes most prominent, until you have enough evidence to produce a representative set of OWN# findings.
Domain Vocabulary
system of record, authoritative source, single source of truth, contested ownership, lifecycle, state transition, creation boundary, terminal state, invariant, consistency rule, consistency boundary, saga, compensating action, aggregate root, repository pattern, write model, read model, CQRS projection, derived view, consumer, publisher, owner, guardian, trust boundary, coordination protocol
Anti-Patterns
- Technical Ownership Conclusion: Analyst treats a database table, ORM model, service name, or deployment unit as proof of domain ownership. Detection: any OWN# finding that names a service or table as "the owner" without also tracing creation authority, modification rights, and protection rules.
- Boundary Proposal: Analyst uses ownership evidence to propose bounded context splits, service decomposition, or migration plans. Detection: any OWN# finding that mentions bounded context boundaries, service splits, or structural migration.
- Architecture Recommendation: Analyst recommends ownership changes, data migrations, or refactoring based on contestation findings. Detection: any OWN# finding with phrasing such as "should own", "should be moved to", or "the correct owner is".
- Single-Writer Assumption: Analyst finds the primary writer and stops, missing secondary writers that contest or supplement authority. Detection: an OWN# finding for a concept where additional reads reveal writers not listed under Modifiers or Contested ownership.
- Lifecycle Elision: Analyst names a domain concept but does not trace its full lifecycle, leaving creation or terminal stages undiscovered. Detection: an OWN# finding with no Lifecycle stages field, or one that lists only a current state without tracing how the concept arrives there or how it ends.
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 · 209 lines · 162 tokens per session scan A a3f2fea39613
domain-ownership-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository testdouble/han (304 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 162 tokens to every session and 2,581 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
database-migrations
Role: Database Migration Safety Reviewer. Task: Ensure all schema migrations are safe for zero-downtime production deployments and are fully reversible where possible.
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
ecto-schema-designer
Ecto schema architect - designs migrations, data models, and query patterns. Use proactively when planning database structure for new features.
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.