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/Data-Wise/craftWrote 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/data-wise/craft/do)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/data-wise/craft/do"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/data-wise/craft/do/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/data-wise/craft/do"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/data-wise/craft/do.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 | $0.00009 | $0.08536 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.03414 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.01707 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00854 |
Grade A, and why
do 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 — 1,006 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/craft:do - Universal Command
Intelligently analyze your task and execute the right craft commands.
Usage
/craft:do <task description>
/craft:do <task description> --dry-run # Preview routing plan
/craft:do <task description> -n # Preview routing plan
--refine / --no-refine (prompt pre-processing)
Runs the prompt-refiner by default to pre-process your input. Pass --no-refine to skip.
Under --yes, the refiner auto-accepts Execute now (no confirm prompt).
Do NOT act on the raw argument. First invoke the
prompt-refiner skill with the argument and project context. Follow that
skill's canonical flow (before/after box → fenced refined-prompt block →
4-way confirm: Execute now / Copy for elsewhere / Edit first / Skip; --yes
or auto mode auto-accepts Execute now). If the user picks "Copy for
elsewhere," stop here — do not start /craft:do's own routing analysis.
Otherwise proceed using the prompt the skill returns. On no-argument
interactive commands, refine AFTER the topic is captured.
Dry-Run Mode
Preview which commands will be executed without actually running them:
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 🔍 DRY RUN: Smart Routing Analysis │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ✓ Task Analysis: │
│ - Input: "add user authentication" │
│ - Category: Feature Development │
│ - Complexity: 4/10 (Medium) │
│ - Spec check: No matching spec found │
│ │
│ ✓ Complexity Breakdown: │
│ - Multi-step task: +2 (design → implement → test) │
│ - Requires planning: +2 (auth architecture needed) │
│ Total score: 4 → Command sequencing (medium complexity) │
│ │
│ ✓ Routing Decision: Feature category command sequence │
│ - Reason: Medium complexity (4/10), feature development │
│ - Commands: /craft:arch:plan → /craft:code:test-gen → │
│ dev/git skill (create branch) │
│ - Estimated: ~15 minutes │
│ │
│ ✓ Alternative Routes: │
│ 1. Simpler command routing (if complexity < 4) │
│ → /craft:arch:plan → /craft:code:test-gen │
│ 2. Orchestration (if complexity > 7) │
│ → /craft:orch "add user authentication" │
│ │
│ ⚠ Notes: │
│ • Consider creating spec first: /craft:brainstorm │
│ │
│ 📊 Summary: Command sequence for feature category (~15 min) │
│ │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Run without --dry-run to execute │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
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 · 1,006 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 42c6b22784da
do is a command published in the GitHub repository Data-Wise/craft (4 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 8,536 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
ci-sentinel
Daily autonomous classifier for failing PRs across your repos. Runs /ci-debug headless against every open PR with red required checks, posts the verdict as a collapsed PR comment, and appends to a per-repo .sentinel/ledger.jsonl. v1 is propose-don't-apply — NEVER auto-pushes a fix. Use when you're tired of /status…
ci-debug
Diagnose a failing CI run against an 11-pattern playbook. Classifies the failure, cites the relevant memory entry, proposes the exact fix command — but NEVER applies without explicit user approval. Use when a specific PR check or GitHub Actions run failed and you want a diagnosis instead of speculation. Don't use for…
arrange-workspace-flow-technical-context
Phase 4 Technical context of arrange-workspace-flow.
ci
Watch gh pr checks until green and fix failures on this branch. Do not merge.
setup-cicd
Configure real CI/CD pipelines in GitHub Actions, Azure Pipelines, or GitLab CI from the blueprint.
well-architected
Six-pillar well-architected review with scores and improvement roadmap.