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/KevinZai/commanderWrote 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/kevinzai/commander/ccc-improve-commands)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kevinzai/commander/ccc-improve-commands"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kevinzai/commander/ccc-improve-commands/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/kevinzai/commander/ccc-improve-commands"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kevinzai/commander/ccc-improve-commands.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 | $0.00852 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00341 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
ccc-improve-commands 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 6d 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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/ccc-improve-commands — command library audit
CC Commander · /ccc-improve-commands · a prioritized report of commands to update, add, and archive, then the approved fixes.
Target: ~/.claude/commands/. If $ARGUMENTS names another directory (for example .claude/commands), audit that instead.
What happens
1. Inventory
Run:
for f in ~/.claude/commands/*.md ~/.claude/commands/**/*.md; do
[ -f "$f" ] || continue
printf '%s\t%s\t%s\n' "$f" "$(date -r "$f" +%Y-%m-%d)" "$(wc -l < "$f")"
done
For each file record the name, the description from its frontmatter, last-modified date, and line count (a complexity signal). Skip archive/.
2. Quality check
- If the Claude Code CLI is available, run
/doctor prompt-auditand fold its findings for commands into this report. - Grade each command on:
- Clarity — the description says what it does; the name matches the behavior
- Completeness — every step needed is present, with exact commands
- Output format — a defined, structured output
- Edge cases — what happens when a step fails
- Freshness — still relevant to current workflows; no stale model names, version literals, or typed-letter menus
3. Gap analysis
Mark each category covered or missing:
- Code review / quality gate
- Testing (generation, TDD, coverage)
- Deployment (check, deploy, rollback)
- Debugging (session, investigation)
- Feature workflow (start, plan, ship)
- Documentation (generate, update)
- Git operations (checkpoint, commit, PR)
- Session management (save, resume, compact)
- Team coordination (peers, spawn, status)
- Project setup (init, configure)
4. Recommendations
COMMAND AUDIT REPORT
Total commands: <n>
Healthy: <n>
Needs update: <n>
Stale (archive): <n>
Missing (create): <n>
UPDATES NEEDED:
1. <command> — <what to fix>
COMMANDS TO ADD:
1. <name> — <what it would do>
COMMANDS TO ARCHIVE:
1. <name> — <why it is stale>
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +26 lines · +23 tokens per session c18895e853bb
- 1mo ago First seen · 75 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 59d72ed05897
ccc-improve-commands is a command published in the GitHub repository KevinZai/commander (6 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 852 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
execute
Execute the next available tracked task with TDD, pre-commit validation, PR creation, AI code review, and issue tracker bridge sync.
phase
Orchestrate a full roadmap phase. Designs features, imports to tracker, creates issues, then executes.
dashboard
Compact visual progress dashboard with progress bar, task table, dependency graph, and active/blocked/next status.
sync
Reconcile coco tracker state with the configured issue tracker. Syncs task statuses and reports mismatches.
planning-triage
Quick-score an enhancement, bug, or feedback item using the impact-first triage framework. Creates an issue if approved.
standup
Show a daily standup summary with completed, in-progress, and blocked tasks across all active epics.