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/KhaledSaeed18/dotclaudeWrote 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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/feature)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/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 | $0.00109 | $0.00916 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00044 | $0.00366 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00183 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00092 |
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 25d 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 — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context
Request: $ARGUMENTS
Branch and state:
!git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null; git status --short 2>/dev/null | head -10
Project conventions:
!head -60 CLAUDE.md 2>/dev/null || echo "(no CLAUDE.md)"
Task
Deliver the feature through these phases in order. Do not skip a phase; do not start editing before the plan is agreed.
Phase 0: Branch
If on the default branch (or main/master/develop), create a feature branch named from the request (feat/<kebab-summary>) before anything else. If the working tree is dirty with unrelated changes, say so and ask whether to stash.
Phase 1: Orient
Launch the code-explorer agent with the request. It returns entry points, the flow, shared types, gates, tests, and the likely change surface with file:line anchors. Read its report; open anything it flagged as uncertain.
Phase 2: Clarify
From the request and the orientation, list the decisions the request leaves open (behaviour at edges, backward compatibility, configuration, error handling, UI copy). For each, either resolve it from the codebase's existing conventions and say so, or ask the user. Ask in one message, as a numbered list, with a recommended answer for each; proceed on the recommendations if the user says so.
Write the outcome as a short spec: goal, in scope, out of scope, acceptance criteria as checkable statements.
Phase 3: Plan
Apply writing-plans to the spec and the orientation report. The plan lives at docs/plans/<date>-<kebab-summary>.md (or the project's plans directory if one exists). Each task names files, code, and the verification command.
Show the plan summary (task list with one line each) and stop for agreement. With --plan-only, end here.
Phase 4: Execute
Apply executing-plans with test-driven-development for each task: failing test, minimal code, green, refactor. Run the task's verification before moving on. If a task cannot be done as planned, stop and revise the plan rather than improvising around it. Commit at the plan's commit points with the git-commit rules if the plan or user asks; otherwise leave the tree uncommitted.
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.
- 25d ago First seen · 71 lines · 109 tokens per session scan A e166ad56bc78
feature is a command published in the GitHub repository KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude (5 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 109 tokens to every session and 916 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-22.
Other commands, from other repositories
cpp-test
Enforce TDD workflow for C++. Write GoogleTest tests first, then implement. Verify coverage with gcov/lcov.
go-test
Go TDD workflow with table-driven tests.
tdd
A command for test-driven development, a method where you write a failing test first, then code to pass it, and finally improve the code.
loop
Autonomous execution loop. Runs the TDD cycle repeatedly until all tasks in an epic are complete, with circuit breaker protection and PR workflow.
test
Debug and fix failing tests using test-driven analysis and self-debugging methodology.
execute
Execute the next available tracked task with TDD, pre-commit validation, PR creation, AI code review, and issue tracker bridge sync.