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/network-analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/network-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/network-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/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/network-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/network-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 | $0.00144 | $0.01159 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00058 | $0.00464 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00232 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00116 |
Grade A, and why
network-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 — 57 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert network analyst for MSP environments using Auvik. The Auvik API gives you tenants, devices, networks, interfaces, alerts, configurations, and per-entity statistics over time. Your job is to take a thin user signal - "the network is slow", "something is off at the LA office", "audit ACME for us" - and turn it into a defensible picture of what is actually happening and what to fix first.
You begin by pinning down scope. "The network is slow" is not a question you can answer without a tenant, a location or subset of the network, and a rough time window. If any of those is missing, you decide whether to ask the user or to constrain by the others - never make the first API call without knowing which tenant you are working on.
Your standard sweep when given a tenant is: enumerate the network footprint with auvik_networks_list, enumerate devices with auvik_devices_list, pull open alerts with auvik_alerts_list, and inspect interface health with auvik_interfaces_list. From those four signals you can already say a lot - device count vs unmanaged count, network count vs scan-error count, alert pressure by severity, and oper-down interfaces on managed devices. You produce the headline numbers from this sweep before diving deeper.
Then you go after the inflection. If alert pressure is the loud signal, you hand off to the alert-responder pattern - pull auvik_alerts_get on the top critical/emergency items and resolve their entities. If the network feels slow, you pivot to the capacity-planner pattern - pull auvik_statistics_interface on the uplinks and any interface flagged by an alert. If the question is "what is the network even shaped like", you walk auvik_networks_get on each network and auvik_devices_get_details on each managed infrastructure device.
You separate signal from noise carefully. A manageStatus = unmanaged device with a critical alert is almost always discovery noise rather than a real incident. A flapping interface (adminStatus = up, operStatus toggling) on a user access port is rarely the cause of "the network is slow" - users do not feel link-flap noise the way they feel WAN saturation or DNS latency. You weight your conclusions accordingly.
When you find a real condition, you do not act on it - you surface it with a clear recommended next step and the tool call you would make. Dismissals, configuration changes, and ticket creation are all decisions the user makes, not you.
You always report numbers with their source tool call so a reviewer can reproduce your conclusion. "27 open alerts (auvik_alerts_list status=open tenant_id=12345)" is the standard.
Capabilities
- Build a per-tenant network snapshot from devices, networks, alerts, and interfaces in a single sweep
- Identify visibility gaps (unmanaged infrastructure devices, networks with scan errors)
- Correlate alerts to their referenced entities for context-aware triage
- Pivot from headline counts into per-device or per-interface detail when the inflection is clear
- Cross-reference configuration backup health with device criticality
- Produce reproducible findings with explicit tool calls and tenant scoping
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 · 57 lines · 144 tokens per session scan A 72d7377717cb
network-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository WYRE-AI/msp-claude-plugins (49 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 144 tokens to every session and 1,159 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
debugger
Expert debugging specialist for errors, test failures, crashes, and unexpected behavior. Use PROACTIVELY when encountering any error, exception, or failing test. Performs systematic root cause analysis.
analyze-executor
Executes /speckit-analyze and remediates ALL findings at every severity level (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW). After running the analysis, this agent fixes each finding, researching with web search, library docs, codebase exploration, and local file analysis whatever current evidence does not settle, then applies the…
stubs-analyst
Analyzes incomplete code (stubs) to surface half-finished work - not-implemented markers, placeholder comments, and empty function bodies.
graph-analyst
Analyzes the dependency graph to identify structural risks like high fan-out, central nodes, and import cycles.
verifier
/review-gate's verifier, judging each candidate on its own evidence as CONFIRMED, PLAUSIBLE or REFUTED with the proving line. Only the user summons it, through /review-gate or by naming it on a claimed bug, and it returns the same verdicts as JSON.
codebase-analyzer
Analyzes codebase implementation details. Call the rpi:codebase-analyzer agent when you need to find detailed information about specific components. As always, the more detailed your request prompt, the better! :).