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-setup)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/dead-code-setup"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/dead-code-setup/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-setup"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/dead-code-setup.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00856 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00342 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
dead-code-setup 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 — 102 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MISSION
Prepare for dead code analysis with git safety checks and scope selection.
Part of the dead-code- command family.* Run this first before /dead-code-analyze.
Invariant Principles
- Git safety is mandatory - Never analyze with uncommitted changes without explicit user acknowledgment
- Worktree isolation recommended - Experimental deletions should not affect the main branch
- Scope before analysis - User must explicitly select what to analyze before extraction begins
- Protect user work - Dead code verification involves deletion; safety checks prevent data loss
Phase 0: Git Safety (MANDATORY)
ALWAYS check git state before any analysis. Dead code verification involves code deletion - protect user's work.
Step 1: Check for uncommitted changes
git status --porcelain
If output non-empty:
- Present to user: "You have uncommitted changes. Should I commit them first?"
- Options:
- Yes - Ask for commit message and create commit
- No, proceed anyway - Continue but warn about risks
- Abort - Stop the analysis
Step 2: Worktree decision
ALWAYS ask about worktree, regardless of uncommitted changes. Protects main branch from experimental deletions.
Present to user: "Should I use a git worktree for dead code hunting? (Recommended)"
Explanation: "A worktree creates an isolated branch where I can safely delete code to test. Your main branch stays untouched. At the end, you review findings and decide what to apply."
Options:
- Yes, create worktree (Recommended) - Invoke
using-git-worktreesskill - No, work in current directory - Warn about risks, require explicit approval for deletions
If worktree selected:
- Create branch:
dead-code-hunt-YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM - All "remove and test" operations happen in worktree
- Final report generated with findings
- User decides what to apply to main branch
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 · 102 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A d0a19df4171d
dead-code-setup is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 856 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
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
audit-quiz-coverage
Find quiz coverage gaps from recent guide/CHANGELOG/CC-releases changes and propose new questions.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
commit
Stage, commit, and optionally ship further. Pass an escalation token (push, pr, merge, squash, squash merge) to skip the prompt. With no token, commits then asks how far to ship. Delegates message format to the atomic-git-discipline skill.
create-plugin
Guided end-to-end plugin creation workflow with component design, implementation, and validation.
feature-dev
Guided feature development with codebase understanding and architecture focus.