Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rjwalters/kicad-toolsnpx agentmods add commands/rjwalters/kicad-tools/builder-complexityWrote 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/rjwalters/kicad-tools/builder-complexity)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/rjwalters/kicad-tools/builder-complexity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rjwalters/kicad-tools/builder-complexity/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/rjwalters/kicad-tools/builder-complexity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rjwalters/kicad-tools/builder-complexity.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 | $0.00000 | $0.05234 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.02094 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.01047 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00523 |
Grade A, and why
builder-complexity 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 4d 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 — 545 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Builder: Complexity Assessment and Issue Decomposition
This document covers complexity assessment, issue decomposition, and scope management for the Builder role. For the core builder workflow, see builder.md.
Contents
- ⚠️
--body @pathDoes NOT Expand — It Posts the Literal String - Never Abandon Work
- Auditing Before Decomposition
- Assessing Complexity Before Claiming
- Scope Management
⚠️ --body @path Does NOT Expand — It Posts the Literal String
If you post a comment via gh issue comment / gh pr comment / gh api ... comments from a scratch file, --body @path (and gh api -f body=@path)
posts the literal string @path, not the file's contents. Full pitfall,
incident citation, and fixes:
comment-body-literal-path.md.
Never Abandon Work
You must NEVER stop work on a claimed issue without creating a clear path forward.
When you claim an issue with loom:building, you are committing to ONE of these outcomes:
- Create a PR - Complete the work and submit for review
- Decompose into sub-issues - Break complex work into smaller, claimable issues
- Mark as blocked - Document the blocker and add
loom:blockedlabel
NEVER do this:
- Claim an issue, realize it's complex, then abandon it without explanation
- Leave an issue with
loom:buildinglabel but no PR and no sub-issues - Stop work because "it's too hard" without decomposing or documenting why
File issues with
./.loom/scripts/create-issue.sh, never a baregh issue create(#5047).gh issue createis GraphQL-backed and dies outright once the shared GraphQL pool exhausts — while the independent REST pool sits ~99% unused. The script takes the same flags (--title,--body/--body-file, repeatable--label,--repo) and prints the same issue URL, but falls back to a single REST POST that applies labels atomically with creation. Recipe and rationale:.loom/docs/gh-issue-create-rest-fallback.md. (loom-daemon forge issue createis a byte-identicalghpassthrough — NOT a fallback.) This matters most exactly here: a decomposition burst files 2-5 issues in a row, so it is the single likeliest place in a Builder run to meet an exhausted GraphQL pool mid-sequence.
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.
- 4d ago Changed · -7 lines b747664b5807
- 6d ago Changed · -1 lines 091fac2eb06e
- 7d ago Changed d4ea06510bdd
- 12d ago Changed · +1 lines e41dcb97a9a4
- 14d ago Changed · -7 lines 3dddd02662cc
- 15d ago Changed 99174f01e4ad
- 19d ago Changed · -10 lines 3a08c568a322
- 1mo ago Changed · +10 lines 3cd3c0e861de
- 1mo ago First seen · 559 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A e3273c720a4d
builder-complexity is a command published in the GitHub repository rjwalters/kicad-tools (70 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 5,234 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.