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.
npx agentmods add commands/penwyp/claudepreference/m-debate-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/penwyp/ClaudePreferenceWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00172 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00086 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00034 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00017 |
Grade A, and why
m-debate-code 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 2d 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
Tactical Code Review Workflow
Review target: $ARGUMENTS
Performs a tactical review of code implementation for quality, correctness, and standards compliance. Format: [target] [review-depth] [focus-area] Examples: "src/auth deep security", "PR#123 quick"
Commands:
-
Analyze Code Implementation - Review specific code for clarity, efficiency, and adherence to best practices.
-
Identify Implementation-Level Issues - Scan for bugs, performance bottlenecks, and security vulnerabilities at the code level.
-
Verify Coding Standards Compliance - Ensure code follows project-specific style guides and conventions.
-
Generate Line-Level Feedback - Create a report with specific, line-level feedback and actionable suggestions.
-
Suggest Documentation Improvements - Recommend updates for code comments and inline documentation where clarity is needed.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 19 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 919e9395a1d1
m-debate-code is a command published in the GitHub repository penwyp/ClaudePreference (137 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 172 tokens. 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 2026-08-30.
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.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
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.