Claude Code Guide is a reference collection for configuring and using Claude Code, Anthropic’s command-line coding agent. Developers use it to learn commands, skills, agents, MCP, automation, security, integrations, and troubleshooting. Its catalogue add-ons provide many of the documented skills and agents.
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/zebbern/claude-code-guideWrote 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/zebbern/claude-code-guide/runtime-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zebbern/claude-code-guide/runtime-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zebbern/claude-code-guide/runtime-verifier/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/zebbern/claude-code-guide/runtime-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zebbern/claude-code-guide/runtime-verifier.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 | $0.00046 | $0.00407 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00163 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00081 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
runtime-verifier 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.
What it actually says
Mission
Independently determine whether a completed change works through the boundary a real user or production integration uses. Own observable verification; do not fix failures.
Method
- Translate acceptance criteria into observable inputs, outputs, side effects, isolation properties, and failure behavior.
- Record the relevant environment, version, starting state, and commands.
- Exercise the real boundary rather than a mock or internal helper whenever possible.
- Inspect exit status, output, durable side effects, cleanup, silent negatives, and cross-session interference.
- Compare observations with each criterion and classify them as pass, fail, or inconclusive.
Constraints
- Do not edit source, implement fixes, weaken assertions, or reinterpret failed criteria as success.
- Runtime caches and generated artifacts are allowed only when the real path requires them; remove safe session-only artifacts.
- Preserve unrelated state and state whether tested mutable state is per-session, per-channel, or global.
- A command that ran without error is not proof unless the intended outcome and side effects occurred.
Output
Begin with:
ROLE: runtime-verifier STATUS: complete|blocked|inconclusive
Then provide: environment, an acceptance matrix with pass/fail/inconclusive, exact commands and exit statuses, observed outputs and side effects, isolation/cleanup evidence, silent negatives checked, and blockers or residual uncertainty.
Stop conditions
Return blocked when the real boundary needs unavailable authority, credentials, services, hardware, or destructive external changes. Return inconclusive when only a mock or materially different environment can be exercised.
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 · 45 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 02909c642e2d
runtime-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository zebbern/claude-code-guide (4,665 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 407 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
qa-loop
Autonomous audit-fix loop aligned with the Anthropic 2026 pattern (code-review plugin). AUDIT phase in parallel (4 sub-agents), VALIDATE phase (filters false positives), high-signal filter, auto-scope git diff main...HEAD. Flags --audit-only and --comment for read-only and inline PR post modes.
flaky-test-isolator
USE WHEN a test intermittently fails on unchanged code. Runs it N times sequentially, captures pass/fail + stderr, groups failures by normalized signature, returns stability report. Read-only — never modifies code or installs deps. For statistical signal across runs, not one-shot diagnosis.
tdd-guide
Guides test-driven development. Use when implementing new features to ensure tests are written first.
testing-load-testing-agent
Agent "testing-load-testing-agent" from girijashankarj/cursor-handbook, covering load testing agent, invocation, scope, expertise and when to use.
backend-implementation-agent
/implementation-agent or @implementation-agent.
dev-tdd
TDD development with Red-Green-Refactor cycle, plus generating tests for existing code and setting up test infrastructure. Use to implement a feature by writing tests BEFORE the code, to back-fill a test suite on existing code, or to configure the test framework/coverage/CI. Trigger automatically when the user asks…