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/bengous/claude-code-pluginsWrote 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/bengous/claude-code-plugins/fact-check-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/bengous/claude-code-plugins/fact-check-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/bengous/claude-code-plugins/fact-check-code/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/bengous/claude-code-plugins/fact-check-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/bengous/claude-code-plugins/fact-check-code.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 | $0.00013 | $0.00464 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00186 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00093 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
fact-check-code 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 9d 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 — 63 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fact Check (Code)
Verify the following claim about this codebase:
Process
- Search the codebase - Run several searches in parallel to find relevant files and patterns
- Read and verify - Examine the actual implementation, not just file names or comments
- Consult external sources - Use WebSearch/WebFetch if the claim involves library behavior or standards
- Report - Present findings with specific file references
<parallel_search_guidance> Run multiple searches in parallel: search for the claimed behavior, related function/class names, and configuration files simultaneously. Check multiple potential locations since code organization varies. </parallel_search_guidance>
Output Format
Verdict
<verdict_definitions>
- Confirmed: Code evidence directly supports the claim
- Partially True: Claim is accurate in some aspects but incomplete or contains inaccuracies
- Incorrect: Code evidence contradicts the claim
- Unable to Verify: Relevant code not found, or evidence is inconclusive </verdict_definitions>
Evidence
- Cite specific files and line numbers:
path/to/file.ts:42 - Quote relevant code snippets when helpful
- Explain discrepancies between claim and actual implementation
Sources
- List files examined with line references
- Include web sources if consulted for library/API behavior
Guidelines
- Always search before concluding - never rely on assumptions or prior knowledge
- Check multiple locations using different search terms (the code might use unexpected naming)
- Distinguish "not found after thorough search" from "confirmed absent" - explain your search strategy
- State your interpretation if the claim is ambiguous before searching
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.
- 9d ago Changed 6d1bf002a8b1
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines a0446ae85c62
- 1mo ago First seen · 62 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 8ab5616f361b
fact-check-code is a command published in the GitHub repository bengous/claude-code-plugins (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 464 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
cleanup
Systematically clean up code, remove dead code, and optimize project structure.
debug
Systematic debug loop: root cause before any fix. Four phases, an evidence ledger, the 3-fix architecture wall. Use for any bug, defect, regression, test failure, or unexpected behavior before proposing a fix: 'fix this bug', 'why does X fail', 'the test is failing', 'it broke after Y', 'debug X', 'bị lỗi', 'sửa bug'…
fix-ci
Start an iterative CI fix session — resolve the input (build / PR / branch / cwd), then run the fixing-ci skill loop until CI is green or you've hit the iteration cap.
doctor
Diagnose pro-workflow setup and Claude Code configuration.
cleanup
Systematically clean up code, remove dead code, and optimize project structure.
root-cause
Use when any test fails, bug appears, or behaviour surprises you, before proposing a fix - find the cause and prove it, by reading real evidence, tracing bad values back to their origin, comparing against a working case, and testing one hypothesis at a time.