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 skills add ahernandez-developer/claude-crap --skill scoregit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ahernandez-developer/claude-crapWrote 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/skills/ahernandez-developer/claude-crap/score)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ahernandez-developer/claude-crap/score"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ahernandez-developer/claude-crap/score/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/skills/ahernandez-developer/claude-crap/score"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ahernandez-developer/claude-crap/score.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 | $0.00164 | $0.00816 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00066 | $0.00326 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
score 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 1mo 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 — 32 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Score the project
Run the score_project MCP tool from the claude-crap server and display the result.
Steps
- Invoke the MCP tool
score_projectwithformat: "both"so you get both the Markdown summary and the JSON snapshot in one call. - Display the Markdown summary verbatim. Do not paraphrase, round, or reorder the dimension ratings — they are deterministic, they come directly from the CRAP / TDR / rating engines, and they must be shown exactly as the engine produced them so the user can verify against the dashboard.
- If the tool response has
isError: true, the overall rating is worse than the configured policy ceiling under strict mode. Explicitly tell the user their workspace FAILS the policy, surface the rule IDs from the failures array (e.g.SONAR-GATE-TDR,SONAR-GATE-ERRORS), and recommend they drill into the dashboard URL or the consolidated SARIF report to see the underlying findings. - If the tool succeeds, tell the user the dashboard URL from the Markdown content so they can open it in a browser for per-file hot spots, and the SARIF report path so they can grep it with other tools if they prefer.
What the user will see
The output includes four A..E letter grades (one per dimension plus an overall), the TDR percent, per-level finding counts, workspace LOC, the scanners that have already ingested findings, the dashboard URL, and the SARIF report path. The overall grade is the worst of the three dimension grades by policy, so a single E-rated security finding drops the whole score to E regardless of maintainability.
Why this skill exists
The score_project MCP tool is the canonical "is this project shippable?" reading for claude-crap. It gets run automatically at the Stop quality gate on every task close, but users often want an ad-hoc read mid-session — to know whether a refactor actually improved the grade, to get a baseline before starting new work, or to decide whether to open a PR now or keep iterating. Making it a single slash command instead of a three-step MCP tool invocation removes the friction from those workflows.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 32 lines · 164 tokens per session scan A f5c81bcb4624
score is a skill published in the GitHub repository ahernandez-developer/claude-crap (9 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 164 tokens to every session and 816 once invoked, about $0.0007 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 skills, from other repositories
debug-optimize-lcp
Guides debugging and optimizing Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) using Chrome DevTools MCP tools. Use this skill whenever the user asks about LCP performance, slow page loads, Core Web Vitals optimization, or wants to understand why their page's main content takes too long to appear. Also use when the user mentions…
systematic-debugging
Use when debugging a failing test, build error, or runtime issue that isn't immediately obvious. Guides a 4-phase root cause analysis instead of random fix attempts.
log-error-digest
Analyze log files to troubleshoot errors, identify peak error periods, and produce error clustering, frequency statistics, and time distribution reports. Supports JSON, syslog, and Nginx formats with automatic detection. Use when a user uploads a .log file and asks to analyze errors, find patterns, debug issues, or…
deck-retro
Run a fully local agent-deck retrospective over the user's own transcripts, Recall index and logs. Use when a user wants to find recurring failures or take their own finding from investigation through synthetic reproduction, a user-filed issue, a test-first fix and contributor PR handoff. Also use for weekly usage…
incident-response-incident-response
Coordinate production incident triage, mitigation, investigation, recovery, and follow-up. Use when responding to outages or other incidents that require structured operational coordination.
ci-fixer
CI failures - read error, minimal fix, verify.