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/YousefNabil-SOC/claude-apexWrote 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/yousefnabil-soc/claude-apex/templates)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/yousefnabil-soc/claude-apex/templates"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yousefnabil-soc/claude-apex/templates/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/yousefnabil-soc/claude-apex/templates"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yousefnabil-soc/claude-apex/templates.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00804 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00161 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
templates 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 8d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/templates
EDIT THIS FILE — the examples below are generic starting points. Add your own templates for recurring workflows.
Purpose
Pre-built task templates for recurring work. Instead of re-explaining a workflow every time, define it once here and invoke with /templates <name> or template: <name>.
Example Templates (replace with your own)
deploy-app
Workflow: standard React/TS/Vite app deployment to Vercel.
Steps:
npm run build— verify zero errors and zero warnings- Run tests:
npm test - Stage specific changed files:
git add <files> - Commit with conventional-commit message:
feat/fix/refactor: <what> git push origin mainvercel --prod— wait for completion, note deployment URLvercel alias set <new-deployment-url> <canonical-domain>— NEVER skip- Screenshot canonical URL with Playwright to verify
- Update
MEMORY.mdwith deployment timestamp
research-company
Workflow: OSINT on a company for competitive intelligence or due diligence.
Steps:
- Use exa-web-search MCP for semantic queries on the company name
- Fetch the company website homepage with WebFetch — extract about, products, team
- Search LinkedIn, Crunchbase, Pitchbook for funding/team signals (if accessible)
- Check news in the last 12 months via exa-web-search
- Compile a structured report:
- Company name, founded, HQ, employee count
- Products/services, target market
- Funding/revenue (if public)
- Recent news, executive changes, risks
- Competitive positioning
- Save to
research/YYYY-MM-DD-<company-slug>.md - Cross-reference minimum 3 sources before stating any "fact"
code-review-workflow
Workflow: multi-perspective code review of a PR or branch.
Steps:
- Run parallel agents:
code-revieweragent — quality, style, convention adherencesecurity-revieweragent — auth, input validation, secretsperformance-engineeragent — bundle size, render performancetdd-guideagent — test coverage, edge cases
- Merge findings into a single structured report
- Group by severity: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
- For each CRITICAL/HIGH: include file path, line number, suggested fix
- Present report to user for review
- Fix agreed-upon issues with focused edits (no scope creep)
- Re-run affected tests and build to verify
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 84 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 6e8af363daa8
templates is a command published in the GitHub repository YousefNabil-SOC/claude-apex (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 804 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
context-stats
Display context window usage and token statistics.
run
Execute prompt(s) from ./prompts/ with automatic archiving - for structured prompt-based work.
help
Explain Ralph Wiggum technique and available commands.
cancel-ralph
Cancel active Ralph Wiggum loop.
backup-config
Backup Claude Code configuration files.
session-log
View and analyze the Claude Code session log.