Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/plugin install code-modernizationWrote 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-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/modernize-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/modernize-review/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/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/modernize-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/modernize-review.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00867 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00347 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
modernize-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 19d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to modernize-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 36 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Ask a person to decide the business rules in analysis/$system/BUSINESS_RULES.md that depend on judgement, and record each answer so the plan and the build honor it. Agents mined the rules and a second agent checked every citation, but only someone who knows the business can say whether a rule is right: whether a truncation is intended or a defect, whether a threshold is still the policy. This command asks in a pop-up and never edits BUSINESS_RULES.md.
1 — Choose the rules
Read BUSINESS_RULES.md (each card has ### RULE-NNN, Priority, Confidence, and sometimes a suspected defect or an SME question) and, if it exists, analysis/$system/RULE_REVIEWS.json; rules already decided are skipped, and you say how many. $scope picks the rest:
- flagged (the default): P0 rules that have a suspected defect, an SME question or less than High confidence, plus any rule the brief's open questions name.
- p0: every P0 rule. all: every rule.
Say how many rules will be asked (about a minute per ten). If none is left, say so and give the next command.
2 — Ask
Use the AskUserQuestion tool, never chat text, up to four rules per call. One question per rule: its id as the header; the title, the plain-English statement, its Given/When/Then in one line, the cited lines (file:line) and the suspected defect or SME question if it has one as the question; and three options: Right (the rule is correct and wanted), Wrong, or not wanted (it misdescribes the code, or the code does this today but should not), Not sure (needs a discussion). The person can type a note instead of choosing: what is right, or the question that needs answering. Keep it, in their words. Stop when they say to. Verdicts the person already typed in the request (RULE-004 wrong: it truncates on purpose) are recorded as given, with no pop-up for those rules. Without the tool and without typed verdicts (a headless run) do not guess: leave every rule unreviewed and say so.
3 — Record
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.
- 19d ago First seen · 36 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A d3937ae49175
modernize-review is a command published in the GitHub repository thevibeworks/claude-code-docs (150 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 867 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to modernize-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
reconcile
Check developer guides for documentation drift against recent code changes.
review
Review proposed ADRs for lifecycle progression — accept implemented decisions, deprecate stale ones, archive trivial ones.
audit
Re-audit accepted ADRs against the codebase — verify each still holds, then amend, supersede, or deprecate the ones that don't.
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.