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/C0ntr0lledCha0s/claude-code-plugin-automationsWrote 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/c0ntr0lledcha0s/claude-code-plugin-automations/analyze)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/c0ntr0lledcha0s/claude-code-plugin-automations/analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/c0ntr0lledcha0s/claude-code-plugin-automations/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/c0ntr0lledcha0s/claude-code-plugin-automations/analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/c0ntr0lledcha0s/claude-code-plugin-automations/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 | $0.00007 | $0.00492 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00197 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00098 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00049 |
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 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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Analyze Command
Perform comprehensive analysis of a component and provide actionable recommendations.
Usage
/my-standard-plugin:analyze [component-name]
What This Command Does
- Locate Component: Find the specified component in the codebase
- Analyze Structure: Examine code structure and patterns
- Check Quality: Assess code quality and best practices
- Generate Report: Provide detailed findings and recommendations
Parameters
- component-name: (Required) The name of the component to analyze
Implementation Steps
Step 1: Validate Input
Check if component-name is provided:
If $1 is empty:
Ask user: "Which component would you like to analyze?"
Exit
Step 2: Find Component
Search for the component in the codebase:
Use Grep to find files matching the component name
Verify the component exists
Step 3: Analyze Component
Read and analyze relevant files:
- Check code structure
- Identify patterns
- Assess quality
- Find potential issues
Step 4: Generate Report
Provide comprehensive findings:
- Summary: Brief overview
- Findings: Detailed analysis
- Issues: Problems identified
- Recommendations: Actionable improvements
Example
/my-standard-plugin:analyze authentication
Expected Output:
🔍 Analyzing 'authentication' component...
📊 ANALYSIS RESULTS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
✅ Strengths:
- Well-structured code
- Good test coverage
⚠️ Issues Found:
- Missing input validation in login.ts:45
- Deprecated method used in auth.ts:78
💡 Recommendations:
1. Add input validation for user credentials
2. Update to use new authentication API
3. Consider adding rate limiting
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Error Handling
- If component not found: Suggest similar component names
- If access denied: Check permissions
- If analysis fails: Provide error details
Notes
- Analysis is read-only (no modifications)
- Results are displayed in terminal
- Consider using the example-agent for deeper analysis
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 · 103 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A fd6b8e593d1a
analyze is a command published in the GitHub repository C0ntr0lledCha0s/claude-code-plugin-automations (3 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 492 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).