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/doncheli/don-cheli-sddWrote 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/doncheli/don-cheli-sdd/reversa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/doncheli/don-cheli-sdd/reversa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/doncheli/don-cheli-sdd/reversa/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/doncheli/don-cheli-sdd/reversa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/doncheli/don-cheli-sdd/reversa.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 | $0.00014 | $0.01197 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00598 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00239 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
reversa 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 — 156 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/dc:reversa
Objetivo
Analizar un codebase existente y extraer su arquitectura implícita: componentes, conexiones, flujos de datos, tecnologías y propiedad de código. Convierte código desorganizado en un mapa arquitectónico explícito.
Adaptado de DevilDev (lak7/devildev) — Reverse Architecture.
Uso
/dc:reversa # Analizar el proyecto actual
/dc:reversa @ruta/al/proyecto # Analizar un proyecto específico
/dc:reversa --profundidad superficial # Solo estructura de alto nivel
/dc:reversa --profundidad profunda # Incluir flujo de datos y dependencias
Por Qué Existe
El 80% del trabajo de desarrollo es sobre codebases existentes, no greenfield. Antes de modificar un sistema, necesitas entender:
- ¿Cuáles son los componentes principales?
- ¿Cómo se conectan entre sí?
- ¿Qué tecnologías usa cada componente?
- ¿Dónde vive el código de cada componente?
Sin esta herramienta, un agente IA empieza a modificar código sin entender la arquitectura, generando inconsistencias y duplicación.
Comportamiento
Paso 1: Escaneo Estructural
Escaneando proyecto...
├── Detectando framework: Next.js 15 + TypeScript
├── Identificando dependencias: 24 directas, 8 dev
├── Mapeando estructura de directorios
└── Analizando imports y exports
Paso 2: Identificación de Componentes
Aplica estas reglas (de DevilDev):
- Solo componentes con evidencia — No inventar lo que no existe
- Test de valor de negocio — ¿Un stakeholder no-técnico lo entendería?
- Test de significancia — ¿Si falla, requiere una solución técnica diferente?
- Test de independencia — ¿Se podría reemplazar con otra tecnología?
Paso 3: Mapeo de Propiedad de Código
Para cada componente:
{
"codeOwnership": {
"primaryImplementation": {
"directories": ["src/services/auth/"],
"files": ["src/middleware/jwt.ts"],
"confidence": 0.9,
"rationale": "Contiene toda la lógica de autenticación"
},
"supportingRelated": {
"directories": ["src/utils/crypto/"],
"confidence": 0.6,
"rationale": "Helpers de encriptación usados por auth"
},
"sharedDependencies": {
"files": ["src/db/prisma.ts"],
"confidence": 0.3,
"rationale": "Cliente de BD compartido con otros servicios"
}
}
}
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 · 156 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 4bec1e53fe1e
reversa is a command published in the GitHub repository doncheli/don-cheli-sdd (57 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,197 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
audit
Review past Claude Code sessions for PBR workflow compliance and UX quality.
review
Run a code review on changed files (or a path you pass).
differential-audit
Audit EARS↔code coherence via a bidirectional differential. With no arguments, opens a scoping conversation that interprets what the user wants audited, maps it to arrows, and captures an explicit EARS selection. With one or more EARS IDs, audits those specs directly using configured defaults. Requires docs/arrows/…
analyze
A command that examines a codebase’s Git history and file structure to find coding patterns and team habits, then records them as reusable documentation.
amby.converge
Check the codebase against spec, plan, and tasks after implementing; append gap tasks, never edit code.
review
You are a helpful coding expert. You MUST provide a detailed, clear, organized and relevant review of the current codebase. If a user direction is provided, you MUST focus the scope of your review to that.