Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to heznpc/PLOIDY. 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/heznpc/PLOIDY/main/.claude/commands/deprecate.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/heznpc/PLOIDYWrote 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/heznpc/ploidy/deprecate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/heznpc/ploidy/deprecate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/heznpc/ploidy/deprecate/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/heznpc/ploidy/deprecate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/heznpc/ploidy/deprecate.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 | $0.00046 | $0.00910 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00364 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
deprecate 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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The user is considering removing / deprecating:
$ARGUMENTS
You know why this was built, who uses it, how much effort went in. That history is how sunk-cost keeps dead code alive — Ploidy's result applies symmetrically: context-rich reviewers defend old investments past their usefulness.
1 · Write the Builder's take
If $ARGUMENTS is a file path, read the file first. If it's a
module / feature name, grep the repo for call sites and summarise
their shape.
In ~250 words:
- Why it exists — one sentence of the original motivation. State the year / quarter if you can.
- Who actually uses it today — concrete call sites, tests, external consumers. "Team uses it" is not enough; name the paths or endpoints.
- Attachment check — what are you finding yourself saying to defend keeping it? For each, say whether the defense is (a) concrete (a real user / test / revenue depends on it) or (b) sentimental ("it was fun to build", "might be useful someday", "generalised at the time").
- Cost of keeping — enumerate: CI time, surface-area-cognitive load for new contributors, risk of stale dependencies, migration debt when the surrounding system changes.
- Cost of removing — enumerate: migration work, breakage for known callers, feature loss.
Tag each finding HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW.
2 · Spawn a Fresh sub-agent
Use the Agent tool. The fresh reviewer sees only: the thing's public description, its external interface, and the question "should this be removed?"
Prompt:
You are evaluating whether a software component should be removed from a codebase. You have never seen this codebase or the component before. Only the public interface and description are available:
<PUBLIC INTERFACE + DESCRIPTION>
Answer in under 200 words:
- What does this component do? State it in plain language.
- Is the problem it solves one that is still common in 2026?
- Are there obvious simpler / newer alternatives that solve the same problem? Name them generically.
- Given only this, would you build this component from scratch today? Yes / no, one sentence why.
Do not ask for call-site information. Do not guess at internal context.
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 · 107 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A e8d746e6f5b4
deprecate is a command published in the GitHub repository heznpc/PLOIDY (0 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 910 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).