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/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-pluginsWrote 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/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/double-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/double-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/double-check/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/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/double-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/double-check.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 | $0.00050 | $0.02036 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00814 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00407 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00204 |
Grade A, and why
double-check 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 — 216 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Double-Check Verification
Ultrathink!
Systematically verify the work just completed to ensure quality and completeness.
Parse arguments from: $ARGUMENTS
- If arguments contain
--deep, enable deep mode (multi-agent review) and strip--deepfrom focus area - Remaining text is the focus area (optional)
Step 1: Scope Detection
Establish what was completed and what ecosystem this project uses.
- Check git status: !
git status --short - Check staged changes: !
git diff --cached --stat - Check unstaged changes: !
git diff --stat - Check recent commits (if no uncommitted changes): !
git log -3 --oneline - Check todo list: Review any in-progress or recently completed todos
- Detect ecosystem: !
ls package.json Makefile pyproject.toml build.gradle build.gradle.kts pom.xml 2>/dev/null || true
Scope Summary: Summarize what will be verified (files changed, features affected, ecosystem detected). If the user specified a focus area, prioritize that scope.
Step 2: Backpressure Gates
Before reasoning-based review, run automated quality checks. Auto-detect available commands based on the ecosystem detected in Step 1.
Detection
Node.js (if package.json exists):
!node -e "try{const s=require('./package.json').scripts||{};console.log(JSON.stringify({test:s.test||null,lint:s.lint||s['lint:check']||null,typecheck:s.typecheck||s['type-check']||s.tsc||null,build:s.build||null}))}catch(e){}" 2>/dev/null
Python (if pyproject.toml exists):
!grep -c '\[tool\.pytest' pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null && echo "pytest detected" || true
!grep -c '\[tool\.ruff' pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null && echo "ruff detected" || true
!grep -c '\[tool\.mypy' pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null && echo "mypy detected" || true
JVM (if gradlew or pom.xml exists):
!test -f gradlew && echo "gradle" || (test -f pom.xml && echo "maven") || echo "none"
Makefile (if Makefile exists):
!grep -E '^(test|lint|check|build)[[:space:]]*:' Makefile 2>/dev/null | cut -d: -f1 || true
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 · 216 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 250d6b254ade
double-check is a command published in the GitHub repository joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins (21 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 2,036 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
p5-impl-refactor
Improves code quality without changing behavior. All tests must continue to pass.
p5-review-code
Checks code for quality, clean code, logic errors and test coverage. Delivers review findings with severity level.
review-pr
Review a pull request or the current branch with four specialist agents in parallel (code-reviewer for correctness and security, silent-failure-hunter, test-gap-analyzer, type-design-reviewer), then merge their findings into one severity-ranked review with file:line anchors and no duplicates, optionally posted to the…
e2e
Invoke E2E Test Automation Engineer for Playwright, integration, and performance testing.
qa
Invoke QA Engineer for test case design, bug investigation, and quality assurance.
tester
Alias for /qa (/rob) - Senior QA Engineer for black-box feature testing.