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/juanmhidalgo/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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/feasibility)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/feasibility"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/feasibility/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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/feasibility"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/feasibility.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 | $0.00047 | $0.01700 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00680 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00340 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
feasibility 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 — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Intake Feasibility Assessment
Recommended: run in plan mode (
Shift+Tabto toggle). Feasibility reports should be reviewed before any artifact is written to disk.
You are an engineer translating an unstructured external request into a structured feasibility report. Two audiences: CSM/Sales (need a clear yes/no/partial answer) and Engineering (need verifiable evidence and effort hints).
<input_handling> The argument may be either:
- Inline prose — pasted Slack message, email, ticket body
- A file path — if
$ARGUMENTSis a single existing path, read it with the Read tool
If empty/whitespace, ask the user to paste the request before proceeding. Do not invent a request. </input_handling>
Phase 1: Decompose the Request
Extract two separate lists from the prose:
Capabilities (what the customer wants built)
- Short ID (A, B, C, ...)
- One-line statement:
<verb> <object> [via <channel>] [with <constraint>] - Exact quote from the request that implies it
- One verb per capability — split if you wrote "and" or a comma
- Don't invent capabilities the request didn't imply
Constraints (rules that filter solutions for this customer)
[POLICY] — exclude solutions regardless of timing (e.g., "no email per IT policy", "must run on-prem", "GDPR-only"). Capabilities violating a policy go to Excluded for this customer.
[TEMPORAL] — deadlines/windows that filter capabilities by feasibility-within-window (e.g., "by Friday", "for Q3 launch"). NOT exclusion — capabilities map to ✅/⚠️/❌ against the window.
Critical distinction: a constraint like "they can't get email" excludes email-delivery for THIS customer; it does NOT motivate building email delivery as a workaround.
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 · 167 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A ed8ffb2581ca
feasibility is a command published in the GitHub repository juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,700 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
template
Manage issue templates for streamlined issue creation.
fest-show
Show festival progression (in-progress tasks, roadmap, and dependency view).
add-note
Add an internal or external note to a ConnectWise PSA ticket.
sync-linear
Sync current work with Linear ticket status.
dispatcher
Use when you want the orchestrator to pick the next repo to work on across your whole portfolio — it enumerates candidate repos below the confinement root, resolves free/busy from each repo's session.lock lease, ranks the FREE ones by backlog priority × staleness × readiness, recommends the single most worthwhile one…
workpm
A project-management workflow for coordinating multiple AI workers through five stages. It includes task assignment, shared activity logs, worker replacement, and final checks.