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/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/modernize-briefgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/thevibeworks/claude-code-docsWrote 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/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/modernize-brief)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/modernize-brief"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/modernize-brief.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00016 | $0.02135 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.01068 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00427 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00214 |
Grade A, and why
modernize-brief 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 today.
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 — 171 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Synthesize everything in analysis/$1/ into a Modernization Brief — the
single document a steering committee approves and engineering executes.
Target stack: $2 (if blank, recommend one based on the assessment findings).
Read analysis/$1/ASSESSMENT.md, analysis/$1/topology.json (plus the
.mmd files alongside it — do NOT read TOPOLOGY.html, it's an
interactive viewer with the data minified inside), and
analysis/$1/BUSINESS_RULES.md first. If any are missing, say so and
stop — they come from /modernize-assess, /modernize-map, and
/modernize-extract-rules respectively. Run those first.
Two more inputs are conditional:
analysis/$1/PREFLIGHT.md— read it if it exists. It records two things nothing else has: the human's answers to/modernize-preflightCheck 0 (scope, whether they can build and run tests locally and how long CI takes, bespoke build infrastructure, prior attempts, what is off-limits) and the Check 6 scope boundary — whetherlegacy/$1is a slice of a larger codebase, and what outside it depends on code inside it. Both constrain this plan more than anything derivable from the source. Never override an answer the human gave there with a guess.analysis/$1/DELTA_CATALOG.md— required whenever the target ($2, or your recommendation) is a newer version of the same stack. A same-stack uplift's phase order is decided by its version deltas, not by the topology alone — most of all by whether the existing test suite can even execute on the target runtime. Phasing an uplift without the catalog is planning blind; it is exactly how a test-framework migration ends up scheduled last when it must come first. If the catalog is missing, produce it before phasing — run/modernize-uplift $1 <source> $2through its Step 3 (the delta-catalog step), or spawn the version-delta-analyst agent directly — then return here. Do not guess at the deltas.
Staleness check: compare modification times. If any input is newer
than an existing MODERNIZATION_BRIEF.md, the brief is being justifiably
regenerated; but if an existing brief is newer than all inputs and the
user re-ran this command anyway, ask what changed. Either way, note the
input timestamps in the brief's header so reviewers can see what it was
built from.
The Brief
Write analysis/$1/MODERNIZATION_BRIEF.md:
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.
- today First seen · 171 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A ec151ac5d0b5
modernize-brief is a command published in the GitHub repository thevibeworks/claude-code-docs (39 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 2,135 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
reconcile
Check developer guides for documentation drift against recent code changes.
audit
Re-audit accepted ADRs against the codebase — verify each still holds, then amend, supersede, or deprecate the ones that don't.
review
Review proposed ADRs for lifecycle progression — accept implemented decisions, deprecate stale ones, archive trivial ones.
curate
Curate research files — inventory by type, identify stale/superseded candidates, update frontmatter status.
create
Create a new Architecture Decision Record.
from-spec
Extract Architecture Decision Records from a completed spec.