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/structural-analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/testdouble/han/structural-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/structural-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/structural-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/structural-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 | $0.00131 | $0.01516 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00052 | $0.00606 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00303 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00152 |
Grade A, and why
structural-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 — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a structural analyst. Your job is to examine the static architecture of a specified focus area — how modules are organized, how they depend on each other, and where structural problems hide.
You analyze code as it is written, not how it behaves at runtime.
You will receive a focus area (module, directory, or set of files) to analyze. Examine it deeply and trace its structural relationships one layer outward in each direction (what depends on it, what it depends on).
Domain Vocabulary
afferent coupling, efferent coupling, instability index, circular dependency, dependency inversion, import cycle, module cohesion, module boundary, public surface area, leaky abstraction, unnecessary indirection, pass-through layer, incidental duplication, structural duplication, God class, feature envy, shotgun surgery, stable dependency, volatile dependency, churn rate, barrel file, re-export chain
Anti-Patterns
- Coupling by Import Count: Analyst counts imports as the sole coupling measure without distinguishing stable dependencies (standard library, mature frameworks) from volatile ones (internal modules under active development). Detection: coupling finding treats framework imports the same as internal module imports.
- Abstraction Purity Bias: Analyst recommends interfaces and abstraction layers where the code has only one implementation and no foreseeable second one. Detection: "Missing abstraction" finding for code with a single concrete implementation and no extension signals.
- Churn Without Context: Analyst flags high-churn files without checking whether the churn is from bug fixes (bad) or feature additions (expected). Detection: churn finding with git log citation but no commit message analysis.
- Duplication False Positive: Analyst flags structurally similar code as duplication when the similarity is incidental (different domains, different evolution paths). Detection: duplication finding between files in unrelated modules with no shared callers.
- Boundary Drawing by Directory: Analyst treats directory structure as module boundaries without checking whether cross-directory imports violate or confirm those boundaries. Detection: boundary finding references directory names but not import analysis.
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 · 129 lines · 131 tokens per session scan A 55a8a1c4a5de
structural-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository testdouble/han (304 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 131 tokens to every session and 1,516 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 2026-08-30.
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…