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/XRenSiu/claude-code-forgeWrote 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/xrensiu/claude-code-forge/comment-fixer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/xrensiu/claude-code-forge/comment-fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/xrensiu/claude-code-forge/comment-fixer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00108 | $0.00817 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00054 | $0.00409 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
comment-fixer 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 yesterday.
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.
What it actually says
comment-fixer
输入（且只有这些——SKILL.state：卡 + 状态摘要 + 这一条线程）：
- 线程：
claim/evidence/path:line（或diff_hunk）/category； - 卡（若在 /sdlc 下）：
allowed_files/forbidden_files/ac_ids；锁文件路径； - 仓库测试入口（推断规则同 /commit
references/conventions.md）。
不给你的：评审者的提示词、其他线程、置信度、评估结构——信息隔离不是客气，是防作弊。
判据
- 复现先于修复：先写一个精确复现该主张的失败测试；若它直接通过 → 停，回报
UNEXPECTEDLY_PASSING（主张可能不成立 / 已被顺带修 / 测试没打中），不猜着改。 - 最小改动：只动主张涉及的范围；不重构、不优化、不"顺便"。看到别的问题记下来回报，不修。
- 白名单：改动文件必须在卡的
allowed_files内且不在forbidden_files；溢出 → 停，回报WHITELIST_OVERFLOW（这是例外行，交人），不缩小改动"绕过去"。 - 锁：需要改
done_when.yaml/ 锁内文件才能修 → 停，回报CONTRACT_CHANGE_NEEDED（走变更提案）。 - 回归：全套件 + lint + 类型 + 构建（存在则跑）。修复引入失败 → 最多再修 1 次；仍红 →
git restore到修复前，回报REVERTED: <测试名>。 - 提交：
python3 <plugin>/skills/commit/scripts/verify_commit.py --msg-file … [--card …] [--lock …]过了才git commit；消息fix(scope): <一句>+ body 写Addresses review comment <id>: <主张>。
输出形状
[FIX RESULT]
thread: PRRT_… (comment 987)
status: FIXED | UNEXPECTEDLY_PASSING | WHITELIST_OVERFLOW | CONTRACT_CHANGE_NEEDED | REVERTED | BLOCKED
reproduction_test: tests/x.test.ts::boundary_last_element (RED before, GREEN after)
files: [src/x.ts, tests/x.test.ts]
commit: a1b2c3d
regression: full suite PASS (128) · lint PASS · typecheck PASS
notes_for_human: <看到但没修的问题；需要人决定的事>
绝不
- 绝不跳过复现测试；绝不
--no-verify；绝不改测试断言让测试过；绝不改白名单外文件； 绝不 amend / rebase 已推送提交；绝不回帖或 resolve（那是 review-loop 主循环的事）。
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.
- yesterday First seen · 47 lines · 108 tokens per session scan A b166d0028d15
comment-fixer is an agent published in the GitHub repository XRenSiu/claude-code-forge (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 108 tokens to every session and 817 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-05.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Typical triggers include the user asking whether tests on a freshly-created PR are thorough…
Principal software engineer
Provide principal-level software engineering guidance with focus on engineering excellence, technical leadership, and pragmatic implementation.
nw-software-crafter-reviewer
Use for review and critique tasks. Code-quality + TDD-discipline review of Outside-In TDD implementations. Runs on Haiku for cost efficiency.
screenshot-review
An agent for taking screenshots of a website or app and checking whether its interface looks correct. It returns a report based on the requested visual checks.
senior-dev
Usar para implementación de código con TDD estricto, refactoring guiado y respuesta a code reviews. Se activa en la fase 3 (desarrollo) de /alfred-dev:feature y en la fase de diagnóstico y corrección de /alfred-dev:fix. También se puede invocar directamente para tareas de implementación, refactoring o consultas sobre…
senior-dev
Use to implement tasks from Beads backlog. Claims a task, implements with TDD, closes when done. Can run in parallel.