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/catlog22/Claude-Code-WorkflowWrote 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/catlog22/claude-code-workflow/analyze)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/catlog22/claude-code-workflow/analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/catlog22/claude-code-workflow/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/catlog22/claude-code-workflow/analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/catlog22/claude-code-workflow/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 | $0.00000 | $0.00489 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00196 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00098 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $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.
What it actually says
Analyze Task
Parse user task -> detect architecture capabilities -> build dependency graph -> design roles.
CONSTRAINT: Text-level analysis only. NO source code reading, NO codebase exploration.
Signal Detection
| Keywords | Capability | Prefix |
|---|---|---|
| analyze, scan, audit, map, identify | analyzer | ANALYZE |
| design, plan, strategy, refactoring-plan | designer | DESIGN |
| refactor, implement, fix, apply | refactorer | REFACTOR |
| validate, build, test, verify, compile | validator | VALIDATE |
| review, audit-code, quality, check-code | reviewer | REVIEW |
Dependency Graph
Natural ordering tiers:
- Tier 0: analyzer (knowledge gathering -- no dependencies)
- Tier 1: designer (requires analyzer output)
- Tier 2: refactorer (requires designer output)
- Tier 3: validator, reviewer (validation requires refactored artifacts, can run in parallel)
Complexity Scoring
| Factor | Points |
|---|---|
| Per capability | +1 |
| Cross-domain refactoring | +2 |
| Parallel branches requested | +1 per branch |
| Serial depth > 3 | +1 |
| Multiple targets (independent mode) | +2 |
Results: 1-3 Low, 4-6 Medium, 7+ High
Role Minimization
- Cap at 5 roles
- Merge overlapping capabilities
- Absorb trivial single-step roles
Output
Write /task-analysis.json:
{
"task_description": "<original>",
"pipeline_type": "<single|fan-out|independent|auto>",
"capabilities": [{ "name": "<cap>", "prefix": "<PREFIX>", "keywords": ["..."] }],
"dependency_graph": { "<TASK-ID>": { "role": "<role>", "blockedBy": ["..."], "priority": "P0|P1|P2" } },
"roles": [{ "name": "<role>", "prefix": "<PREFIX>", "inner_loop": false }],
"complexity": { "score": 0, "level": "Low|Medium|High" },
"parallel_mode": "<auto|single|fan-out|independent>",
"max_branches": 5
}
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 · 58 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4e2b7b1bca2e
analyze is a command published in the GitHub repository catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow (2,125 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 489 tokens. 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
verify-claim
Walk a claim through the SIFT method (Stop, Investigate, Find better coverage, Trace).
beat-brief
Draft a daily beat briefing from the files in sample-docs/.
cross-review
Run GitHub Copilot CLI and OpenAI Codex against the current git diff for cross-model review.
init
Initialize configurations for Supabase local development.
skill-refresh
You are running inside a headless Claude Code session in the neo4j-skills repository. Goal: scan Neo4j release notes and deprecation pages, then update any SKILL.md and references/ files that are stale, outdated, or missing new features. Open no PRs or commits — output only file edits. The workflow will handle git and…
gofer:check-workspace
Check whether this repo is initialized for Gofer and explain any missing or stale scaffold.