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/Jewgah/claude-code-skillsWrote 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/jewgah/claude-code-skills/feature)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jewgah/claude-code-skills/feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jewgah/claude-code-skills/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/jewgah/claude-code-skills/feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jewgah/claude-code-skills/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 | $0.00024 | $0.00329 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00132 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00066 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00033 |
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.
What it actually says
Goal: $ARGUMENTS
Drive this as the main session (you can dispatch subagents). If a referenced agent isn't installed in this repo (minimal tier), perform that step yourself inline — never fail on a missing agent.
- Explore — dispatch the
exploreragent to map where this change lives and how it connects. - Plan — dispatch the
planneragent with the explorer's findings. Show the plan; if it's non-trivial or ambiguous, confirm with me before building. - Implement — dispatch the
implementeragent to execute the plan. Split independent parts into parallel implementer runs when safe. - Review — dispatch the
revieweragent on the diff. Fix every CRITICAL; fix WARNINGs unless I defer them. - Test — dispatch the
testeragent to run{{TEST_CMD}}/{{BUILD_CMD}}. Loop fixes until green.
Track the phases with TodoWrite. Do not commit or push unless I ask. End with a short summary: what changed, the test result, and anything I should know.
Then append a Dispatch report: Why this config (which agents you ran and why that depth fit the task), a table Agent | Why popped | What it did | Result (one row per agent), and Skipped (agents you didn't use, and why).
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 · 19 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 4ad2124503d3
feature is a command published in the GitHub repository Jewgah/claude-code-skills (2 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 329 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
speckit.verify
Validates implementation completion by checking tasks, logic, tests, and code quality against specifications. Use when you need to verify that all tasks are properly completed.
test-tdd
Run when user calls /test-tdd. Scans modified files, locates their corresponding unit/integration test suites, and runs them.
devkit.typescript.code-review
Provides comprehensive TypeScript monorepo code review for Nx workspaces including NestJS backend, React web, and React Native mobile apps. Use when reviewing architecture, boundaries, security, performance, CI/CD and Nx-specific practices.
cc-review
(Conductor) Review code changes against spec and standards.
complete
Complete a partially implemented feature by filling gaps and ensuring production readiness.
pm-review
Review local git diff with reasoning + snippets; cross-check; dispose findings into the rules library.