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.
npx agentmods add commands/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/watchgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fprochazka/claude-code-pluginsWhat 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 | $0.00026 | $0.07768 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.03884 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.01554 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00777 |
Grade A, and why
watch 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 2d 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 — 413 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Watch the MR Until the Review Is Settled
Run a full code review of the current branch's merge request, post it, hand the work back to the author, and then watch on a schedule until every blocking finding and every suggestion has been addressed in code or refuted with a reply.
The handshake invariant. Ready-for-review means the MR is not draft AND the ticket is in REVIEW_STATE. Back-to-work means the MR is draft AND the ticket is in WORK_STATE. The two flags always move together. Whoever hands the ball over sets both.
That is what paces this command. After posting a round of findings, hand the work back — ticket to WORK_STATE, MR to draft. Only when both flags say ready-for-review again does the next round run. This keeps the review out of work-in-progress instead of commenting on every half-finished push.
review → post → ticket to WORK_STATE + MR to draft → [wait]
→ author sets MR ready + ticket to REVIEW_STATE
→ sync the local branch onto the author's new head
→ revisit every open thread, reply, resolve what is settled
→ review the delta, post new findings
→ anything still open? ticket to WORK_STATE + MR to draft, wait again
→ nothing open? leave it ready in REVIEW_STATE and stop
This command is the reviewer side of an MR. It is the mirror image of /sdlc:mr-babysit, which is the author side. The distinction matters and is enforced below: this command never edits, commits, pushes, or rebases locally, and never resolves the author's threads.
$ARGUMENTS
Stance — you are the reviewer, not the author
For the whole lifetime of this command, including every cron pass:
- Never change the code. No
Edit, noWriteinto the repo, nogit commit, nogit push, no localgit rebase, nogit checkoutof a different branch, no stash. If a finding has an obvious fix, describe it in the comment. Do not apply it. - Never resolve a thread the author opened. You may resolve your own finding threads, and only once you have verified in the diff that the finding is genuinely addressed.
- Never promise anything on the MR. Comment bodies state findings, facts, verification results, and open questions. They do not say "we will fix", "a follow-up is coming", "this will be improved", or any softer paraphrase. If a fix belongs in the picture, describe it as an option in the comment and raise the commitment question with the user in the conversation instead.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 413 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 461c09d1a1fa
watch is a command published in the GitHub repository fprochazka/claude-code-plugins (11 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 7,768 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.