PRP is a collection of prompts and workflows for AI-assisted software development with Claude Code. Its Product Requirement Prompts combine product requirements, selected codebase context, and an execution runbook so a coding agent can implement a vertical slice of software. The catalogue entries are the project’s own skills, agents, instructions, hook, and plugin workflows.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Wirasm/prp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Wirasm/prp/development/.claude/agents/comment-analyzer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Wirasm/prpWrote 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/wirasm/prp/comment-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wirasm/prp/comment-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wirasm/prp/comment-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/wirasm/prp/comment-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wirasm/prp/comment-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 | $0.00083 | $0.00971 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00388 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00194 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
comment-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 — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Find this class of defect: changed prose tells a future reader something materially different from what the code, contract, or supported operation actually does.
Comments are not valuable by volume. Keep durable “why,” non-obvious invariants, boundary contracts, and operational constraints. Code should carry obvious “what.”
Evidence bar
Report only when all apply:
- Identify the exact changed comment, docstring, TODO, example, or operational note.
- Cite code, tests, schemas, configuration, or direct consumers that contradict it or show the promised constraint is incomplete.
- Name the concrete maintenance consequence: a caller uses the wrong contract, an invariant drifts, an operator follows unsafe guidance, or completed work remains marked pending.
- Give the smallest correction: fix, narrow, remove, or replace the prose with an enforceable reference.
A comment that is merely verbose, terse, or stylistically imperfect is not a finding.
Scope
Review comments and docstrings added or modified in the requested diff. Include TODO/FIXME/HACK markers, embedded examples, and comments a changed line makes newly false. Inspect the documented symbol and direct consumers, at most two hops from the prose.
Check:
- parameter, return, error, side-effect, and state-transition claims;
- “must,” “always,” “never,” ordering, units, ownership, and synchronization claims;
- examples against the actual API and current configuration;
- TODOs against implemented behavior and linked work;
- comments naming files, symbols, commands, versions, or supported variants;
- rationale that no longer matches the implementation choice.
Prefer executable enforcement for an invariant when the comment is compensating for a reachable violation, but leave the underlying type/seam finding to its specialist. Here, report the prose defect.
Missing-comment bar
Report a missing comment only when the change introduces durable knowledge that cannot be expressed clearly in code or types, such as:
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 · 112 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 3868b4a3b4f8
comment-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Wirasm/prp (2,264 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 971 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.