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/luiseiman/dotforgeWrote 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/luiseiman/dotforge/forge-ultracode-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/luiseiman/dotforge/forge-ultracode-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/luiseiman/dotforge/forge-ultracode-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/luiseiman/dotforge/forge-ultracode-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/luiseiman/dotforge/forge-ultracode-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 | $0.00051 | $0.00554 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00222 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00111 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
forge-ultracode-check scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Decide whether ultracode mode is justified RIGHT NOW for this working tree.
-
Resolve project tier
- Read
registry/projects.local.yml(or.forge-manifest.jsonat repo root, or$DOTFORGE_DIR/registry/projects.local.yml) - Match entry by
cwd→ extractultracode_tier(light|standard|heavy|production) - If no match or field absent → default
standard, note "unregistered project"
- Read
-
Read working state
git status --short→ count files modified (M) and staged (A/M cached)git diff --stat HEAD→ lines added/removed- Read
.claude/session/last-startup.md→ recent edits + active task hint - Note presence of high-risk surfaces: migrations, auth, payments, infra IaC, schema files,
template/hooks/,settings.json.partial
-
Apply the 5 canonical criteria (from
domain/workflow-and-ultracode-policy.md)- C1 Blast radius: ≥3 files OR >200 LOC changed → +1
- C2 Domain risk: tier ≥ heavy, OR touches auth/payments/migrations/infra/schema/security → +1
- C3 Ambiguity: ≥2 valid approaches with real tradeoffs (infer from task hint) → +1
- C4 Reversibility: hard to undo (prod migration, force-push, schema drop, live trade) → +1
- C5 Prior failure: sonnet attempted and failed, OR
CLAUDE_ERRORS.mdshows repeat in this area → +1
-
Output verdict
Ultracode recommendation: ON | CONSIDER | OFF
Score: N/5 (tier: <tier>, files: <n>, LOC: ±<n>)
Triggered: C2 (auth touched), C4 (migration irreversible)
Reasoning: <2-3 lines citing which criteria fired and why>
Mapping: score ≥3 → ON · score 2 → CONSIDER · score ≤1 → OFF. Override to ON if C2+C4 both fire regardless of total — irreversible touch on a risk surface always warrants adversarial verify.
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 · 37 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 00f88097e682
forge-ultracode-check is a command published in the GitHub repository luiseiman/dotforge (8 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 554 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
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.
pmworker
A worker mode for a multi-agent project coordinator. It takes assigned coding tasks, works within specified files, and uses results from earlier tasks.
zeus
A command that runs an automated software-building pipeline from a one-line product description through planning, implementation, review, Docker setup, and testing.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.
trailofbits:semgrep-rule
Creates Semgrep rules with test-first methodology.
minos
A QA workflow that turns written test scenarios into Playwright browser tests, runs them, explores the site, and repeats fixes until the tests pass. Playwright is a tool for testing web pages in real browsers.