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/research.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/research)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/cognitx-leyton/codegraph/research"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cognitx-leyton/codegraph/research/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/research"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cognitx-leyton/codegraph/research.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 | $0.00010 | $0.00672 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00269 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00134 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
research 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 — 109 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Research (Step 2)
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Deep research before creating an implementation plan. Combines codegraph queries, codebase exploration, and external documentation research.
Phase 1: Issue Context
If input is a number, fetch the GitHub issue:
gh issue view $ARGUMENTS
Extract: title, description, labels, linked PRs, comments.
If input is text, use it directly as the research topic.
Phase 2: Codebase Impact Analysis
Use codegraph to understand what the change touches:
2.1 Find affected symbols
/graph "MATCH (c:Class) WHERE c.name CONTAINS '<keyword>' RETURN c.name, c.file"
/graph "MATCH (f:Function) WHERE f.name CONTAINS '<keyword>' RETURN f.name, f.file"
2.2 Blast radius
For each affected symbol, check who depends on it:
/blast-radius <symbol>
2.3 Related files
/graph "MATCH (f:File)-[r:IMPORTS_SYMBOL]->(g:File) WHERE g.path CONTAINS '<path>' RETURN f.path, r.symbol"
2.4 Architecture check
/arch-check
Note any existing violations that might interact with the change.
Phase 3: Codebase Exploration
Use the Explore agent to:
- Read the files identified in Phase 2
- Understand existing patterns and conventions
- Identify test files that cover the affected code
- Note any related TODO/FIXME/HACK comments
Phase 4: External Documentation (if needed)
If the issue involves external libraries, APIs, or frameworks:
4.1 Context7 (for library docs)
Use context7 MCP to fetch current documentation for the relevant library.
4.2 NotebookLM (for deep research)
If complex research is needed:
nlm notebook list # check existing notebooks
nlm notebook query <notebook-id> "<question>"
4.3 Web search (fallback)
Search for specific error messages, migration guides, or API references.
Phase 5: Research Summary
Output a structured summary:
## Research: <topic>
### Issue
<Issue title and key requirements>
### Affected Code
| File | Symbol | Impact |
|------|--------|--------|
| path | name | what changes |
### Blast Radius
- N files import the affected symbols
- N tests cover the affected code
- Key callers: <list>
### External Context
<Any library docs, API details, or migration notes>
### Risks
| Risk | Severity | Mitigation |
|------|----------|------------|
| ... | HIGH/MED/LOW | ... |
### Recommended Approach
<1-2 paragraphs on how to implement this>
### Ready for: /plan_local
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 · 109 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 9a62d6fa1076
research is a command published in the GitHub repository cognitx-leyton/codegraph (12 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 672 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.