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.
npx agentmods add commands/basher83/lunar-claude/analyzegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/basher83/lunar-claudeWrote 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/basher83/lunar-claude/analyze)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/basher83/lunar-claude/analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/basher83/lunar-claude/analyze.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 | $0.00007 | $0.00526 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00263 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00105 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
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 2d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Continue the ADR workflow by analyzing options against established criteria.
Use the adr-methodology skill for risk rating definitions.
Prerequisites Check
Read .claude/adr-session.yaml to retrieve session state.
If file doesn't exist or status is not criteria_defined:
- Inform user that criteria must be defined first
- Instruct them to run
/adr-assistant:new [topic]to start the workflow - Stop processing
Phase 1: Options Enumeration
Display the topic and criteria from state file.
Ask user to list the options under consideration. For each option:
- Name/identifier
- Brief description (1-2 sentences)
If user hasn't identified options, help brainstorm based on the decision context and constraints.
Phase 2: Risk Assessment
For each option, evaluate against every criterion using risk ratings:
| Rating | Definition |
|---|---|
| Low | Minimal risk to requirements, performance, or scale |
| Medium | Manageable risk with proper governance |
| High | Significant risk without active mitigation |
For each rating, include:
- Risk level (L/M/H)
- Brief rationale (1-2 sentences)
- Mitigation strategy (for Medium/High)
Phase 3: Generate Matrix
Present the analysis as a comparison matrix:
| Criterion | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|---|---|---|---|
| [name] | Risk: L. [rationale] | Risk: M. [rationale] | Risk: H. [rationale] |
After the matrix, summarize:
- Strongest option per pillar
- Key trade-offs between top options
- Any blocking concerns (High risk on critical criteria)
Phase 4: Refinement
Ask user to review and refine:
- Adjust any ratings that seem off
- Add missing considerations
- Clarify trade-off priorities
Phase 5: Save State
After user confirms analysis, update .claude/adr-session.yaml:
topic: "[decision topic]"
status: "analyzed"
framework: "[framework]"
criteria:
# ... existing criteria ...
options:
- name: "[option name]"
description: "[brief description]"
ratings:
"[criterion name]":
risk: "[Low|Medium|High]"
rationale: "[explanation]"
mitigation: "[if Medium/High]"
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 84 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A b0fd479644af
analyze is a command published in the GitHub repository basher83/lunar-claude (22 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 526 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.