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/matteocervelli/llmsWrote 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/matteocervelli/llms/cc-command-improve)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/matteocervelli/llms/cc-command-improve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/matteocervelli/llms/cc-command-improve/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/matteocervelli/llms/cc-command-improve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/matteocervelli/llms/cc-command-improve.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 | $0.00012 | $0.01863 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00745 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00373 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00186 |
Grade A, and why
cc-command-improve 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 — 306 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Improve Claude Code Command: $1
Improve an existing slash command by analyzing its current implementation and applying enhancements based on provided input.
Usage
/cc-command-improve my-command "Add parameter validation and better error handling"
/cc-command-improve run-tests "Add support for pytest markers and coverage reporting"
/cc-command-improve generate-docs "Include API examples and improve formatting"
Process
⚠️ RECOMMENDED: Use Plan Mode (Shift+Tab twice) for this command to review the improvement strategy before making changes.
1. Load Existing Command
# Find the command in catalog
!python -m src.tools.command_builder.main list --search "$1"
Read the existing command file and analyze its current implementation:
- Frontmatter configuration
- Current functionality
- Parameters and options
- Bash commands
- File references
- Documentation quality
2. Analyze Improvement Request
Use sequential-thinking-mcp to understand the improvement request:
-
What is being requested?
- New features to add
- Problems to fix
- Quality improvements
- Performance optimizations
-
How does it affect the command?
- Changes to parameters
- New bash commands needed
- Additional file references
- Template changes
- Documentation updates
-
What are the constraints?
- Backward compatibility
- Existing dependencies
- Command naming conventions
- Template limitations
3. Design Improvements
Plan the changes following best practices:
- Functionality: Add requested features while maintaining existing behavior
- Validation: Add input validation and error handling
- Documentation: Improve descriptions and usage examples
- Performance: Optimize bash commands and file operations
- Usability: Better argument hints and clear examples
Design considerations:
- Keep commands under 500 lines (split if needed)
- Follow Claude Code command conventions
- Follow naming convention: [context-]object-action[-modifier] pattern
- Maintain clarity and readability
- Add comprehensive examples
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 · 306 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 679d789fe6f1
cc-command-improve is a command published in the GitHub repository matteocervelli/llms (25 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 1,863 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-09-01.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
speckit.bug.fix
Apply the remediation from a bug assessment and record what was changed.