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/GantisStorm/essentials-claude-codeWrote 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/gantisstorm/essentials-claude-code/code-quality-plan-creator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/gantisstorm/essentials-claude-code/code-quality-plan-creator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gantisstorm/essentials-claude-code/code-quality-plan-creator/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/gantisstorm/essentials-claude-code/code-quality-plan-creator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gantisstorm/essentials-claude-code/code-quality-plan-creator.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00752 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00301 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00150 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
code-quality-plan-creator 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 — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architectural Code Quality Planning (LSP-Powered)
Analyze code quality using Claude Code's built-in LSP for semantic understanding. Generates architectural improvement plans.
Use the right tool:
- Code quality improvements →
/code-quality-plan-creator(this command) - New features/enhancements →
/plan-creator - Bug fixes →
/bug-plan-creator
Arguments
File paths to analyze (one agent per file):
- Single file:
/code-quality-plan-creator src/services/auth_service - Multiple files:
/code-quality-plan-creator src/agent src/hitl src/app - Glob pattern:
/code-quality-plan-creator agent/*
Instructions
Step 1: Parse Input
Parse $ARGUMENTS to extract file list. Validate each path exists.
Step 2: Ask Clarifying Questions
Use AskUserQuestion to gather missing context. Ask only what's unclear — skip questions the user already answered in their input.
Questions to consider (ask 1-4 based on what's missing):
- Focus: What kind of improvements matter most? (performance, readability, security, maintainability, all)
- Constraints: Any patterns or conventions to enforce? Any refactoring that's off-limits?
- Priority: Any known pain points or areas of concern in these files?
- Exit criteria: How will we verify improvements? Specific lint rules, test commands, or benchmarks?
If the input is already detailed enough (clear files, obvious focus area), skip this step entirely and go straight to Step 3.
Step 3: Launch Agents
For EACH file, launch background agent with enriched context:
Analyze code quality: <file-path>
<clarifying context from user answers, if any>
REQUIRED Task tool parameters:
subagent_type: "essentials:code-quality-plan-creator-default"
run_in_background: true
prompt: "<assembled prompt with file path and context>"
Launch ALL agents in a single message for parallel execution. Output a status message like "Analyzing N files..." and end your turn. The system wakes you when agents finish.
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 · 92 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A d81d549262dd
code-quality-plan-creator is a command published in the GitHub repository GantisStorm/essentials-claude-code (90 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed Unlicense. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 752 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
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/…
review
Structured code review with severity categorization (distinct from Claude Code's PR review).
note
Add a note to the active task - progress, decisions, context. --session (aliases --snapshot, --pre-compact, --compact) writes a resume-grade session snapshot without ending the session. --team writes a fact or a decision into the standing team's file.
address-pr-feedback
Systematically address PR review comments. Fetches all threads, categorizes by status (acknowledged, silently fixed, unaddressed), and guides user through posting replies and implementing fixes with explicit approval.
advanced-code-review-context
Advanced Code Review Phase 2: Context Analysis - load previous reviews, PR history, declined items.