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/sangrokjung/claude-forgeWrote 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/sangrokjung/claude-forge/workflow-classify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sangrokjung/claude-forge/workflow-classify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sangrokjung/claude-forge/workflow-classify/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/sangrokjung/claude-forge/workflow-classify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sangrokjung/claude-forge/workflow-classify.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 | $0.00018 | $0.01439 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00576 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00288 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00144 |
Grade A, and why
workflow-classify 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 — 134 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Workflow Classify Command
Classify task size and recommend the appropriate pipeline. Use this before starting work to avoid over-engineering small tasks or under-preparing large ones.
Size alone doesn't tell you what to write down or how many independent eyes look at the change before it counts as done. rules/task-grade-routing.md maps each grade to a documentation and verification obligation, and the classification report below always prints both.
Classification Criteria
| Size | Criteria | Pipeline |
|---|---|---|
| S | Single file, no logic change | Implement directly → /quick-commit |
| M | 2-5 files, within existing patterns | /plan → /tdd → /handoff-verify → /commit-push-pr |
| L | 5+ files or new patterns introduced | Full pipeline with phased implementation |
| XL | Data model, infrastructure, or security changes | Full pipeline + security review |
Pipelines by Size
S — Direct Implementation
(implement) → /quick-commit
M — Standard Pipeline
/plan → /tdd → /code-review → /handoff-verify → /commit-push-pr
- Use
/autoto run this automatically
L — Phased Pipeline
/plan (master, gated by planner's Restate Gate) → (human review)
→ [Per Phase]
Phase N: /explore → /plan → /tdd → /code-review
→ /handoff-verify
→ /commit-push-pr
- Each Phase should be M-sized (5-15 files max)
- One session = one Phase (prevent context exhaustion)
- Phase failure: manual rollback to Phase branch
- There is no separate
/plan-reviewcommand.agents/planner.md's Restate Gate already forces a one-sentence restatement and an explicit user confirmation before the master plan is handed off, so that gate stands in for the missing step above.
XL — Phased Pipeline + Security
(same as L, plus:)
→ /security-review (CWE + STRIDE, once after all phases)
→ /handoff-verify
→ /commit-push-pr
Sub-Phase Splitting (L/XL)
The key to L/XL tasks is splitting each Phase to M-size.
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 · 134 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 94cf467d9691
workflow-classify is a command published in the GitHub repository sangrokjung/claude-forge (858 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 1,439 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
security-audit
Comprehensive security audit of your project AND Claude Code configuration. Analyzes secrets exposure, injection surfaces, dependencies, hook security, and produces a scored security posture assessment.
init-docs
Fetch official Anthropic Claude Code docs and store as local baseline snapshot.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.
plan-start
5-phase planning command: PRD analysis, design review, technical decisions, dynamic research team, metrics. Produces a complete implementation plan + ADRs before any code is written.
create-task-list.template
This prompt was authored for Claude-style slash workflows. In Codex runtime, adapt tool calls as follows.
todo.template
This prompt was authored for Claude-style slash workflows. In Codex runtime, adapt tool calls as follows.