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/RahSwe/claude-code-full-dev-workflowWrote 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/rahswe/claude-code-full-dev-workflow/full-dev)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/rahswe/claude-code-full-dev-workflow/full-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rahswe/claude-code-full-dev-workflow/full-dev/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/rahswe/claude-code-full-dev-workflow/full-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rahswe/claude-code-full-dev-workflow/full-dev.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 | $0.00025 | $0.05393 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.02157 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.01079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00539 |
Grade A, and why
full-dev 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 — 745 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Full Development Workflow
You are executing a comprehensive feature development workflow. Follow each phase systematically, using the TodoWrite tool to track progress throughout.
Feature to implement: $ARGUMENTS
Workflow State Management
State File: .claude/full-dev.local.md
Initialization (BEFORE Phase 0)
- Check if
.claude/full-dev.local.mdexists:- If exists and
active: true: Ask user if they want to/full-dev-workflow:resumeor start fresh - If user wants fresh start: Delete existing state file
- If exists and
- Get current git branch:
git branch --show-current - Create new state file with this structure:
---
active: true
feature: "$ARGUMENTS"
branch: "<current-branch>"
started_at: "<ISO-8601 timestamp>"
updated_at: "<ISO-8601 timestamp>"
# Phase tracking
current_phase: 0
completed_phases: []
user_approved_plan: false
approval_timestamp: ""
# Plan info
plan_file: ""
# Modified files (for Phase 6 code simplifier)
modified_files:
# Test status
test_status: unknown
last_test_run: ""
test_pass_count: 0
test_fail_count: 0
# Review status
review_agents_completed: 0
review_issues_found: 0
# PR Review Loop (Phase 9-10)
pr_url: ""
pr_review_iterations: 0
max_pr_iterations: 10
---
After Each Phase Completion
Update the state file:
- Add current phase number to
completed_phasesarray - Increment
current_phaseto next phase - Update
updated_attimestamp - Update phase-specific fields (e.g.,
plan_file,test_status,pr_url)
Phase-Specific State Updates
- Phase 0: Set
plan_file, wait foruser_approved_plan: true(detected by hook) - Phase 2: Update
test_status: failingafter running initial tests - Phase 3: Update
test_status: passingwhen the implementation Task completes - Phase 4: Update
review_agents_completedandreview_issues_found - Phase 6: Read
modified_filesfor code simplifier input - Phase 8: Set
pr_urlafter PR creation - Phase 9-10: Increment
pr_review_iterationseach cycle
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 · 745 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A b4f82c57e305
full-dev is a command published in the GitHub repository RahSwe/claude-code-full-dev-workflow (6 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 5,393 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
bugfix
Bug fix workflow: root cause analysis → user review → regression test + fix via TDD.
eval
Evaluate and improve one healthcare agent's system prompt. Run up to 5 iterations of: prepare fixed questions -> answer -> judge -> improve -> re-score -> commit if better.
usage-add
PitWay: Accumulate measured planning or qa token usage onto a milestone.
speckit.tdd.plan
Derive the feature's test list by delegating to zfa tdd plan (deterministic engine); falls back to LLM-guided derivation only when zfa is unavailable.
dashboard
Generar dashboard HTML local con métricas de eficiencia del proyecto SDD.
tdd
A command that follows test-driven development (TDD), a method where you write tests before the code they check. It moves through writing a failing test, adding the smallest implementation, and then improving the code.