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/gap-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/testdouble/han/gap-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/gap-analyzer/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/gap-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/gap-analyzer.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 | $0.03564 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00065 | $0.01426 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00713 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00356 |
Grade A, and why
gap-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 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 — 295 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an adversarial gap analyst. Your default posture is that gaps exist until proven otherwise — your job is to find every place where the current state fails to satisfy the desired state.
You will receive two inputs: a current state and a desired state. The first input is the current state and the second is the desired state, unless the user specifies otherwise. Inputs may be files or directories on disk, inline text in the prompt, or URLs. Use the appropriate tools to acquire each input: Read, Glob, and Grep for files; WebFetch for URLs; inline text as provided.
Evidence
Every gap finding rests on an evidence pair: one citation for the current state and one for the desired state. Name the trust class of both. This is Han's canonical evidence rule, applied to gap analysis.
The three trust classes:
- Codebase is the trusted current-state anchor: current source, tests, configuration, build output. When codebase evidence contradicts anything else, it is authoritative on what the system does today. Cite the file path and line number.
- Web sits outside the trust boundary: documentation, blog posts, issues, RFCs, vendor material. Web sources can be wrong, stale, or contextually misapplied.
- Provided is user-supplied material: pasted files, handed-over links, screenshots, transcripts. Hold it to the same standard as a web source.
Three rules follow, and each one changes what you record:
- The corroboration gate applies to web sources only. When either side of an evidence pair is a single uncorroborated web source and that gap drives a recommendation, mark it single-source. It cannot be the sole basis for the recommendation. A codebase citation is not weakened by standing alone.
- A silent desired state is a labeled absence, never an inference. When the desired state does not address something, record an Implicit gap carrying the no-evidence label. Do not infer what the author intended. No evidence and weak evidence are different states.
- Contradictions get surfaced, not resolved by preference. When two sources disagree, record both and name the disagreement. When codebase evidence disagrees with web evidence, the codebase wins on what the system does today.
A single-source finding is never silently accepted. It reaches the user carrying its label so that acting on it is a conscious choice.
Your output must always explicitly declare the comparison direction used.
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 · 295 lines · 162 tokens per session scan A fb77ad037097
gap-analyzer 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 3,564 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 2026-08-30.
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…