Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/main/.claude/skills/tsa-constraints/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzerWrote 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/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/tsa-constraints)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/tsa-constraints"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/tsa-constraints.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00161 | $0.01211 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00081 | $0.00606 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
tsa-constraints 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 — 147 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
tsa-constraints — Inhibitory edges as code
Bio-analogy: inhibitory synapses — declared "X must NOT call Y" rules that fire UNSAFE verdicts when violated. Rules live in
architectural-constraints.ymlat repo root, are evaluated against the persisted call graph, and persist violations in SQLite for fast re-reads.
When to use
| Goal | Action |
|---|---|
| List current rules | Read architectural-constraints.yml |
| Check repo against rules | edit action=constraints (no args) |
| Pre-edit gate (includes rule check) | edit action=safe (auto) |
| Add a new rule | Edit YAML + re-run edit action=constraints |
| Filter violations by severity | edit action=constraints severity_min="error" |
| Filter by path | edit action=constraints path_filter="mcp/**" |
Procedure
One-shot audit
edit action=constraints
Returns:
success: true
verdict: SAFE | CAUTION | UNSAFE
violations: [
{rule_id, caller_file, caller_line, callee_name, callee_file, severity, reason}
]
rule_count: <int>
evaluated_edge_count: <int>
Verdict cascade:
UNSAFE→ any error-severity violationCAUTION→ any warn-severity violationSAFE→ none
Adding a new rule
- Open
architectural-constraints.ymlat repo root - Append:
- id: <slug, kebab-case> severity: error | warn | info rule: forbid from: "path/glob/**" to: "path/glob/**" reason: "<why this is forbidden>" exceptions: ["specific/file.py"] # optional - Run
edit action=constraintsto see if existing code violates the new rule - Either: fix the violations OR add them to
exceptions
Reading violations
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 · 147 lines · 161 tokens per session scan A 16be04723fc9
tsa-constraints is a skill published in the GitHub repository aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer (49 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 161 tokens to every session and 1,211 once invoked, about $0.0008 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
codegraph
Use for repo structure, symbol navigation, dependency analysis, duplicate triage, and PR impact review when plain text search is too shallow.
plan-eng-review
Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture, data flow, diagrams, edge cases, test coverage, performance. Walks through issues interactively with opinionated recommendations. Use when asked to "review the architecture", "engineering review", or "lock in the plan". Proactively suggest when…
autoplan
Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skills from disk and runs them sequentially with auto-decisions using 6 decision principles. Surfaces taste decisions (close approaches, borderline scope, codex disagreements) at a final approval gate. One command, fully reviewed plan out. Use when…
pre-landing-review
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. Use when explicitly asked for the specialized pre-landing workflow. Product /review requests are handled by OpenBitFun's unified Review mechanism instead.…
systemic-issue-triage
Trigger: new issue, bug report, triage, backlog, issue flood, community report, root cause, dead-end, blocked user. Attack issues by root class, never one-by-one; fixes must shrink the system, not grow it.
investigate
Systematic debugging with root cause investigation. Four phases: investigate, analyze, hypothesize, implement. Iron Law: no fixes without root cause. Use when asked to "debug this", "fix this bug", "why is this broken", "investigate this error", or "root cause analysis". Proactively invoke this skill (do NOT debug…