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/axiomantic/spellbookWrote 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/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/dead-code-analyze)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/dead-code-analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/dead-code-analyze/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/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/dead-code-analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/dead-code-analyze.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 | $0.00028 | $0.02536 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.01014 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00507 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00254 |
Grade A, and why
dead-code-analyze 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 — 280 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MISSION
Extract all code items from scoped files, present for user triage, verify each item's liveness via whole-codebase search, and re-scan to fixed-point.
Run after /dead-code-setup completes.
Prerequisites: Git safety completed, scope selected.
Invariant Principles
- Assume dead until proven alive - Evidence of usage clears the item; absence of evidence condemns it
- Evidence-based verdicts - Every verdict requires grep output, caller locations, or explicit proof
- Transitive analysis required - Code called only by dead code is itself dead; iterate to fixed-point
- Write-only detection - Setters without getter usage indicate dead features (entire feature unused, not just dead functions)
Phase 2: Code Item Extraction
Extract ALL added code items from scoped files.
What to Extract
| Item Type | Examples | How to Identify |
|---|---|---|
| Procedures/Functions | proc foo(), func bar(), def baz() |
Declaration lines |
| Types/Classes | type Foo = object, class Bar |
Type definitions |
| Object Fields | field: int in type definitions |
Field declarations |
| Imports/Includes | import foo, from x import y |
Import statements |
| Methods | Procs on objects, class methods | Method definitions |
| Constants | const X = 5, #define X |
Constant declarations |
| Macros/Templates | macro foo(), template bar() |
Macro/template defs |
| Global Variables | Top-level vars | Variable declarations |
| Getters/Setters | Accessor procs/methods | Property accessors |
| Iterators | iterator items(), for x in y |
Iterator definitions |
| Convenience Wrappers | Simple forwarding functions | Thin wrapper procs |
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 · 280 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 5bf3859934f8
dead-code-analyze is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 2,536 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
quick-fix
Implement→review subagent loop with no planning phase, for a fix whose cause is known and whose shape is obvious, however many files it touches. No spec, no worktree, no docs or signals at the end; one audit. Routes to /subagent-diagnose on an unknown cause and to /atomic-plan on an open approach or contract choice.
optimize
Suggest concrete performance improvements for the given file or directory.
debloat
Retroactive whole-repo bloat removal (spec H-2ii). Scores an existing repo on the deterministic bloat axes, writes BLOAT-REPORT.md, and — only behind a passing test-suite safety oracle — proposes gated refactor waves as a PR. The zero-risk adoption hook.
maintain
Run automated maintenance — seeker finds bugs from pod logs and raises GitHub issues, fixer picks them up and creates PRs. Can run as a one-shot or scheduled via /schedule.
map
Generate MAP.md — a relational map of every file, function, signature, and call in the repo.
sanity
Cross-check a dekko callers/uses result against a targeted grep before trusting a low/zero count.