setup

A setup routine that adds the Memory Kit's note-taking structure to an existing repository. It first checks what files and documentation already exist, then proposes how the kit should fit alongside Claude Code's built-in memory.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to create or adopt memory folders, decide where project knowledge and handoffs belong, inspect existing repository conventions, and add safe permission settings after approval.
Why use it?
It helps avoid overwriting existing project files and makes the repository's memory system intentional. It also identifies optional steps that were skipped instead of treating them as completed.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/awrshift/claude-memory-kit/setup
Any agent
npx skills add awrshift/claude-memory-kit --skill setup
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/awrshift/claude-memory-kit

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 93 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,642 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan D 2 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00093 $0.02642
Opus 5 $0.00046 $0.01321
Sonnet 5 $0.00019 $0.00528
Haiku 4.5 $0.00009 $0.00264

Measured yesterday against content hash e99c07778268, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade D, and why

setup scanned grade D with 2 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 yesterday.

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.

Reads agent configuration directoriesmediumAgent snooping

.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/ hold keys, settings and other credentials a mod has no legitimate need for.

[ -f "$HOOK" ] || HOOK=$(find ~/.claude/plugins -path '*memory-kit*' -name session-start.py | head -1)

Recursive force deletehighDestructive command

rm -rf with a variable or a broad path is one typo away from removing the wrong tree.

"Bash(rm -rf:*)"
plugins/memory-kit/skills/setup/SKILL.md · 188 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 188 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

/memory-kit:setup — adopt the kit in an existing repository

The plugin ships behaviour; the repository owns the state. This skill creates that state — always asking before the first write, and never touching files the repo already has.

Running without a user who can answer (a headless or -p run)? Then "offer" means skip and report: take the documented default where one exists, install nothing that the skill marks as opt-in, and finish with a list of what was deliberately not installed and what question is still open. Never invent a preference on the user's behalf and never present a skipped step as done.

Step 0 — look before you write

Report in two lines what already exists: .claude/memory/MEMORY.md, context/handoffs/, knowledge/, projects/, an existing documentation home (docs/, doc/, documentation/), .claude/settings.json, .gitignore, and whether this repo already holds work of its own — code, or documents other than a bare README (a real project) — or is effectively empty (a fresh memory workspace). Being a git repo decides nothing; content does. Everything after this is a proposal the user confirms once, not a sequence of prompts.

Step 1 — the shared memory layers

These four are shared across every project in the repo. Create only what is missing, copying from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/:

Path From Purpose
.claude/memory/MEMORY.md templates/MEMORY-TEMPLATE.md the hot cache the hook injects every session
context/handoffs/HANDOFF-TEMPLATE.md templates/HANDOFF-TEMPLATE.md the per-session note format
knowledge/index.md templates/workspace/knowledge-index.md the catalog of deep memory
knowledge/concepts/.gitkeep where promoted patterns land
.claude/state/.gitkeep hook bookkeeping (gitignored)

Step 1b — the project layer (projects/<name>/)

The four layers above hold MEMORY. The work's own documents — tasks, specs, research, decisions, QA — belong to a PROJECT, and the kit is multi-project by design: one folder per client or product, so that a decision ledger, a findings registry and a QA protocol each count and describe exactly ONE thing. This applies to a single-product code repository too — it simply has one project folder, named after the product. (Earlier versions told you to skip projects/ in a code repo. That left specs, backlogs and research with no home, and they scattered into the repo root.)

Read the full file on GitHub · 188 lines

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 188 lines · 93 tokens per session scan D e99c07778268

Subscribe to this mod's changes

setup is a skill published in the GitHub repository awrshift/claude-memory-kit (31 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 2,642 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it D with 2 findings (reads agent configuration directories, recursive force delete). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.