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-edit-safety/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-edit-safety)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/tsa-edit-safety"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/tsa-edit-safety/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/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/tsa-edit-safety"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/tsa-edit-safety.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00160 | $0.01067 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00080 | $0.00534 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00213 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00107 |
Grade A, and why
tsa-edit-safety 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 9d 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 — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
tsa-edit-safety — Decide before you edit
Replaces grep/read/git-diff/blame exploration with 2-3 MCP calls returning verdict + exact command to verify. 80% token reduction vs. manual recon.
When to use
- Pre-edit gate for any non-trivial change (more than 5 lines or crossing files)
- User asks any of: "is X safe to change", "what depends on Y", "what tests cover Z"
- Right after
git diffshows pending changes you want to evaluate
Don't use when:
- One-line typo fix in a doc / comment
- File you're literally creating from scratch (no callers)
Procedure
Step 1 — Single fan-out (parallel)
Call these 3 tools in ONE message:
edit action=safewithfile_path: "<the file>"andedit_type: "<refactor|add_feature|fix_bug|rename>"edit action=impactwithmode: "staged"(or"branch"if pre-stage), scope to the filehealth action=filewithfile_path: "<the file>"
Step 2 — Read the verdict cascade
Verdict precedence (worst wins):
UNSAFE(from constraints or impact) → STOP, explain why, do not editCAUTION(high impact / dependencies / hot zone) → narrow scope, write tests firstREVIEW(moderate, often "no tests nearby") → write tests before editSAFE→ proceed; still run the returnedverification_command
Step 3 — Always quote the exact verification_command
The tools return a verification_command and stop_condition. Surface them
verbatim to the user before editing. Example:
verdict: REVIEW verification_command:
uv run pytest tests/unit/test_health_scorer.py -qstop_condition: tests exit successfully next_step: write a failing test for the new behaviour first
Common shapes
No tests nearby → escalate to REVIEW + recommend tdd workflow
__init__.py edit → REVIEW automatically (re-exports)
mod_count_30d >= 5 → CAUTION (hot zone — extra review attention)
Constraint violation → UNSAFE (architectural rule — forbidden edge)
CLI equivalents (if MCP unavailable)
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 108 lines · 160 tokens per session scan A 4986fb1a0fb0
tsa-edit-safety is a skill published in the GitHub repository aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer (49 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 160 tokens to every session and 1,067 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
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…
memstack-development-performance-audit
Use this skill when the user says 'performance audit', 'why is it slow', 'optimize performance', 'page speed', 'Core Web Vitals', 'lighthouse', 'load time', or needs to diagnose and fix frontend or backend performance issues. Do NOT use for code reviews or security audits.
debug
Use this skill to locate a runtime bug. Add targeted instrumentation, collect reproduction evidence, and confirm the root cause before changing code.
memorix-troubleshooting
Use when Memorix MCP, setup, project binding, HTTP control plane, hooks, skills, or agent integration is missing, stale, or failing.
qa
Systematically QA test a web application and fix bugs found. Runs QA testing, then iteratively fixes bugs in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying. Use when asked to "qa", "QA", "test this site", "find bugs", "test and fix", or "fix what's broken". Proactively suggest when the user says a…
assess-impact
Analyze blast radius before changing specific files. Use before refactoring core components, making breaking API changes, or modifying shared code to identify affected files and stakeholders.