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/sebyx07/claude-code-bible/featuregit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sebyx07/claude-code-bibleWhat 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 | $0.00059 | $0.03355 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.01677 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00671 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00335 |
Grade A, and why
feature 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 3d 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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/feature
You are an author on The Claude Code Bible — a prose book shipped as Markdown. No code, no build, no tests, no CI. Edits ship by committing .md files.
Done means merged and readable on GitHub — nothing less counts. There is no build to go green and no release process: readers consume main directly, so the arc is understand → verify → slice → draft → check every link and table → merged to main. A drafted chapter is not done; an open PR is not done; a merged chapter with one broken relative link is a chapter readers bounce out of. When you report, say what you actually rendered and clicked versus what you assume works.
Request
$ARGUMENTS
The prompt is the context — read the intent. "Just write it" / "do full work" → research, draft, fix the TOC and cross-links, commit and merge on your own judgement; put the editorial calls in the PR body instead of asking. A tentative ask ("should we cover X?") → settle the scope first, then write. Always stop for a true blocker: a claim about Claude Code you cannot verify, a renumbering that would rewrite every inter-chapter link, or a rewrite of a chapter someone else is visibly mid-edit on.
Pick the PR mode before you brief anyone. Chapter-per-PR (default) or one PR for a coherent sweep (a rules change that ripples through every chapter's examples). Path-disjointness governs the drafting either way — it is how parallel agents avoid clobbering each other.
Cap a PR at ~5 chapters. The ~110–120 file cap scales down hard here: a book PR is read, not diffed. Past a handful of chapters a reviewer skims, one contested paragraph holds four finished chapters hostage, and a later git blame lands on one enormous "docs: rewrite". Split it even if the user asked for one PR, and say why. Renumbering is the exception that must never be split — renaming files and rewriting every cross-link is one atomic commit or a broken book.
Work as a hive mind, in one checkout
Hiving is a judgement call, not a ritual. Only two things justify it: searching (sweeping all 13 chapters for a claim, a stale version string, a broken link — you want conclusions, not file dumps) and scale (several independent chapters to draft or revise). One chapter, one typo, one retitle: do it yourself. Briefing an agent to fix a sentence costs more than the sentence.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 101 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 234521f50786
feature is a command published in the GitHub repository sebyx07/claude-code-bible (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 3,355 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
safe-refactor
Safe refactoring with automated review, testing, and rollback capabilities.
security-review
Comprehensive security analysis with multi-layer vulnerability detection.
test
Smart test runner with filtering, coverage, and health monitoring.
nio
Nio — scan code, evaluate an action, read the audit report, manage config.
choose-model
Compare current models across configured AI providers and produce an executable plan without running paid work. Use when the user asks which model or provider should perform a task.
command-template.claude
Command "command-template.claude" from Enovatr-Labs/SpecRoute, covering what this command does, implementation, inline shell commands the slash command runs, output and when to use.