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/c0ntr0lledcha0s/claude-code-plugin-automations/analyzegit 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.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 | $0.00007 | $0.00492 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00246 |
| Sonnet 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 5d 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.
- 5d 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 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 492 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 2026-08-31.
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.