Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to jayminwest/kotadb. 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/jayminwest/kotadb/develop/.claude/commands/issues/feature.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jayminwest/kotadbWrote 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/jayminwest/kotadb/feature)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jayminwest/kotadb/feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jayminwest/kotadb/feature/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/jayminwest/kotadb/feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jayminwest/kotadb/feature.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01462 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00585 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00292 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00146 |
Grade A, and why
feature 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 — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/feature
Template Category: Action
Draft a KotaDB feature implementation plan using the issue context passed in $ARGUMENTS (provide JSON with issue number, title, summary, and constraints).
CRITICAL - Worktree Path Handling:
- You are executing in an isolated git worktree directory
- Your CWD is the worktree root (e.g.,
/project/trees/feat-123-abc12345) - ALL file paths in Write, Edit, Read tools MUST be relative to CWD
- ✅ Correct:
.claude/.cache/specs/feature-123-plan.md - ❌ Wrong:
/project/trees/feat-123-abc12345/.claude/.cache/specs/feature-123-plan.md - Using absolute paths will cause git staging failures and commit errors
Instructions
- Verify issue labels first: Run
gh issue view <issue-number> --json labelsto ensure the issue has labels from all four categories (component, priority, effort, status). If labels are missing, apply them before proceeding. - Create a new markdown plan under
.claude/.cache/specs/namedfeature-<issue-number>-<slug>.md(e.g.,.claude/.cache/specs/feature-1024-event-streaming.md). - Build
<slug>from the issue title using 3–6 lowercase, hyphenated words (alphanumeric only). - Reference issue metadata from
$ARGUMENTSat the top of the plan for traceability. - Review
.claude/commands/docs/conditional_docs/app.mdor.claude/commands/docs/conditional_docs/automation.mdand read any documentation whose conditions match the feature scope. - Use KotaDB MCP tools for context gathering: Use
mcp__kotadb-staging__search_codeto find similar implementations,mcp__kotadb-staging__analyze_change_impactfor large features (see.claude/commands/docs/kotadb-agent-usage.mdfor patterns) - Follow the repo git flow: work from
feat/<issue-number>-<slug>branching offdevelop, with releases promoted fromdeveloptomain. - Populate the exact format below so automation can reference each section without guesswork.
- Research existing patterns in
src/**,tests/**, and platform docs before proposing changes. - Highlight any data contracts, API surfaces, or tooling updates that the feature requires.
- Think critically about risk, rollout, and validation; do not leave placeholders empty.
- Enumerate relevant code paths and new assets in their dedicated sections.
- Incorporate
/anti-mockguidance: plan for real database coverage, failure injection, and follow-up for any unavoidable skips. - Ensure the plan's final tasks rerun validation and push the branch so a PR can be created (PR titles must end with the issue number, e.g.
feat: add search filters (#210)). - If the plan introduces new documentation areas, append or update the relevant entry in
.claude/commands/docs/conditional_docs/app.mdor.claude/commands/docs/conditional_docs/automation.md.
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 · 138 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4694cecc9511
feature is a command published in the GitHub repository jayminwest/kotadb (100 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,462 tokens. 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
fest-show
Show festival progression (in-progress tasks, roadmap, and dependency view).
verify-math
Verify a self-authored mathematical result end to end by routing claims across adversarial review, numerical falsification, symbolic or CAS checks, and Lean, then aggregating one report. Use when a theorem, proposition, conjecture, or paper-wide mathematical argument needs the appropriate combination of verification…
synthesise-reviews
Deduplicate and reconcile multiple completed review reports into one prioritised revision plan with conflicts and dependencies made explicit. Use when parallel reviewers have returned findings that need a single action sequence. Not for running the reviews; use $review-cluster.
firebase-publish
Create or reuse a Firebase project, configure Hosting, and deploy the current static site. Never deletes.
tdd-feature
Implement a new feature using full TDD loop.
auditoria-legal
Grupo: Trabajo con el framework En una frase: Auditoría de cumplimiento legal del producto — territorio, evidencia y lo que el código no cubre. Cuándo: Antes de publicar una app o web: registro, cookies, analítica, emails, suscripciones, contenido de usuarios. Quién: Cualquier operador del repo.