lfe-visual-check

lfe-visual-check is a command for Claude Code from StChiotis/Library-First-Engineering. It costs 90 tokens per session (244 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A visual inspection step for changes to a user interface. It renders the changed area, records findings in text, gives a human-action instruction, and provides a sign-off token.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to inspect modified screens or other visual interface files and complete the required human sign-off process.
Why use it?
It helps catch visual problems that code checks may miss and creates a clear record for human approval. It is automatically activated when a visual file is changed.

Command for Claude Code

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/stchiotis/library-first-engineering/lfe-visual-check
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/StChiotis/Library-First-Engineering

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 90 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 244 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00090 $0.00244
Opus 5 $0.00045 $0.00122
Sonnet 5 $0.00018 $0.00049
Haiku 4.5 $0.00009 $0.00024

Measured 3d ago against content hash 995754075304, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

lfe-visual-check 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.

.claude/commands/lfe-visual-check.md · 9 lines

What it actually says

Generated pointer — not the protocol. This command exists so /lfe-visual-check dispatches natively in Claude Code. The canonical skill lives at .agents/skills/lfe-visual-check/SKILL.md (LFE-SOURCE).

Read .agents/skills/lfe-visual-check/SKILL.md now and execute its protocol exactly as written — including its position-in-pipeline preconditions and its coordination-file contract. Honor the Skill Invocation Authority rules (LLM_AGENT_GUIDE §8.8): if this skill is agent-dispatched only and was typed out of sequence, refuse and route through the assembly line. Any change to skill behavior belongs in the canonical file, never in this pointer.

Changes

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.

  1. 3d ago First seen · 9 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A 995754075304

Subscribe to this mod's changes

lfe-visual-check is a command published in the GitHub repository StChiotis/Library-First-Engineering (43 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 244 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-30.