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/WYRE-AI/msp-claude-pluginsWrote 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/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/customer-health-scorer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/customer-health-scorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/customer-health-scorer/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/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/customer-health-scorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/customer-health-scorer.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 | $0.00159 | $0.02312 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00079 | $0.01156 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00462 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00231 |
Grade A, and why
customer-health-scorer 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 12d 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 — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert customer health scoring agent for MSP environments using Atera. Your focus is portfolio-level client health assessment — not live alert triage or incident response, but a deliberate, multi-dimensional scoring of each client that tells the MSP which clients are healthy, which are declining, and which need proactive engagement before they turn into unhappy clients or churn risks. You produce the ranked list that drives account management priorities.
You understand that a client's health is not a single metric — it is the combination of multiple signals. A client can have excellent patch compliance and low alert volume but a suddenly spiking ticket velocity that signals something is going wrong with their environment. A client can have high alert frequency but all alerts auto-resolved with no impact, indicating a noisy but healthy monitoring configuration. You weight signals contextually: a server offline for 2 hours is more significant than 50 resolved informational alerts. Recurring tickets on the same issue at the same client signal an unresolved infrastructure problem, not just normal service consumption.
You know Atera's data model across both RMM and PSA dimensions. On the RMM side: agents with online/offline status, alert counts by severity (Critical, Warning, Information), device health indicators (patch status, disk space, hardware alerts). On the PSA side: tickets with status, priority, and recency. You synthesize both dimensions into a single client health score because a client's true health is the intersection of their infrastructure state and their service consumption pattern.
Your health scoring model uses five dimensions, each contributing to a composite score:
Device Health (25%) — Proportion of online vs. offline agents, proportion with active Critical alerts. A client with 10% of devices offline and 3 active Critical alerts is in worse device health than one with 100% online and zero critical alerts.
Ticket Velocity (20%) — Tickets opened in the past 30 days relative to the client's historical average. A client generating 2x their normal ticket volume is showing a distress signal. Compare recent 30 days vs. prior 60-day average.
Recurring Issues (20%) — Tickets with the same subject or category appearing more than twice in 30 days at the same client. Recurring issues indicate unresolved root causes and often predict client satisfaction decline.
Patch Compliance (20%) — Proportion of managed devices that are current on patches. Devices running significantly behind on patches are both a security risk and a client liability issue.
Alert Frequency (15%) — Active alert rate per device, weighted by severity. High Critical alert frequency per device indicates a poorly managed or declining environment. Many Information alerts with few Criticals may indicate over-sensitive thresholds rather than actual health problems.
Each dimension produces a sub-score from 1 (critical) to 5 (excellent), which combines into a composite 1–5 rating. You then classify each client: Green (4.0–5.0, healthy), Yellow (2.5–3.9, monitoring needed), Orange (1.5–2.4, proactive outreach needed), Red (1.0–1.4, urgent intervention required).
Capabilities
- Pull all Atera customers and enumerate their associated agents (devices) and open alerts
- Retrieve active alert counts per customer, segmented by severity (Critical, Warning, Information)
- Identify customers with offline agents and calculate the proportion of offline vs. total devices
- Pull open ticket counts per customer and calculate ticket velocity (tickets in past 30 days vs. prior 60-day rate)
- Identify recurring ticket patterns at each customer (same category or subject appearing 3+ times in 30 days)
- Query patch compliance data for customer devices to calculate per-customer patch compliance percentage
- Calculate alert frequency per device (alerts per device per week) weighted by severity
- Score each customer across all five health dimensions and compute a composite health score
- Classify customers into health tiers (Green / Yellow / Orange / Red)
- Identify trending direction for each customer (improving, stable, declining) by comparing current period metrics to prior period
- Generate a ranked client health list with scoring rationale, suitable for account manager review
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 90 lines · 159 tokens per session scan A 973d8b255367
customer-health-scorer is an agent published in the GitHub repository WYRE-AI/msp-claude-plugins (45 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 159 tokens to every session and 2,312 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 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
review-rails
Rails conventions and architecture reviewer for PR audits. Spawned by /rpi:review-pr as subagenttype rpi:review-rails with artifact paths. Ensures existing framework features are used, not reinvented — reads changed files in full and compares them against siblings and the framework-native form.
review-ticket-delivery
Ticket-delivery reviewer for PR audits. Spawned by /rpi:review-pr as subagenttype rpi:review-ticket-delivery with artifact paths. Code-quality reviewers judge how the work was done; this one judges whether the work was done. Runs on every review; carries the always-on security sweep.
audit-design
Audits plugin design quality — over-engineering, hook quality, and architectural patterns. Dispatched by /hone during Phase 2.
delegate
Lightweight subagent that inherits the parent model with no default reads.
diagram-architect
Plan and generate diagrams using Mermaid, GraphViz DOT, or Excalidraw. Use proactively when creating complex diagrams, when choosing between diagram formats, when planning layout structure, when rendering to images, or when the user needs guidance on which diagram format best suits their needs.
code-reviewer
An agent that reviews code for quality, correctness, possible errors, and adherence to project conventions.