Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to cognitx-leyton/codegraph. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cognitx-leyton/codegraph/main/.claude/commands/implement.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cognitx-leyton/codegraphWrote 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/cognitx-leyton/codegraph/implement)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/cognitx-leyton/codegraph/implement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cognitx-leyton/codegraph/implement/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/cognitx-leyton/codegraph/implement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cognitx-leyton/codegraph/implement.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 | $0.00614 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00246 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00123 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
implement 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 2mo 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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Implement Plan (Step 4)
Plan: $ARGUMENTS
Phase 1: Load
Read the plan file and extract:
- Tasks — ordered list of what to implement
- Files to Change — CREATE/UPDATE list
- Patterns to Mirror — code references to follow
- Acceptance Criteria — what "done" looks like
- Validation — how to verify
If plan not found:
Error: Plan not found at $ARGUMENTS
Create one first: /plan_local "feature description"
Phase 2: Verify Starting State
git branch --show-current # must be a feature branch (feat/, fix/, chore/)
git status -s # should be clean
If on a protected branch (main/release/hotfix/dev): STOP, wrong branch. If dirty: warn user, don't proceed until resolved.
Phase 3: Execute
For each task in the plan, in order:
3.1 Read Context
- Read the Mirror / Read first references from the plan
- Understand the pattern before writing code
3.2 Implement
- Make the change as specified in the task
- Follow the mirrored pattern exactly
3.3 Validate Immediately
After EVERY file change:
cd codegraph && python -m compileall codegraph/ -q # syntax check
.venv/bin/python -m pytest tests/ -q # tests
If validation fails:
- Read the error
- Fix the issue
- Re-run validation
- Only proceed to next task when passing
3.4 Track Progress
Use TaskCreate/TaskUpdate to track each task. Mark in_progress when starting, completed when done.
Task 1: UPDATE codegraph/resolver.py ✅
Task 2: CREATE tests/test_new.py ✅
Task 3: UPDATE codegraph/cli.py ⏳ (in progress)
If you deviate from the plan, note what changed and why.
Phase 4: Final Validation
After all tasks complete:
cd codegraph
python -m compileall codegraph/ -q # byte-compile
.venv/bin/python -m pytest tests/ -q # full test suite
.venv/bin/codegraph --help # CLI sanity
All must pass with zero errors.
Phase 5: Report
Implementation Complete
-----------------------
Plan: {plan-path}
Tasks: {N}/{N} completed
Tests: {N} passed, {N} new
Deviations: {none | list}
Ready for: /review-pr
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 98 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A 525462ccf912
implement is a command published in the GitHub repository cognitx-leyton/codegraph (12 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 614 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
feedback
A design-stage security review for product requirement documents and other planning documents; a PRD is a document describing what a product should do.
va
A read-only security review of a codebase across eight architecture areas, with findings checked against file-and-line evidence.
compliance
A follow-up security check that verifies whether earlier findings were fixed and, depending on the selected mode, looks for new problems.
pentest
A read-only penetration-testing command for examining source code from an attacker’s perspective and producing proof-of-concept checks. Penetration testing is authorized security testing that tries to verify exploitable weaknesses.
run
A security-workflow coordinator that turns a natural-language request into a plan involving code review, verification, attack testing, or reporting.
verify
An independent recheck of a security assessment report that derives conclusions from its own evidence instead of accepting the original findings.