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 agentmods add skills/babamba2/superclaude-for-sap/analyze-codenpx skills add babamba2/superclaude-for-sap --skill analyze-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/babamba2/superclaude-for-sapWrote 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/babamba2/superclaude-for-sap/analyze-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/babamba2/superclaude-for-sap/analyze-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/babamba2/superclaude-for-sap/analyze-code.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00044 | $0.01347 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00674 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00269 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00135 |
Grade A, and why
sc4sap:analyze-code 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 5d 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SC4SAP Analyze Code
Reviews an ABAP object by delegating the heavy work (source read, structural/semantic/where-used analysis, 14-dimension rule matching) to sap-code-reviewer (Opus 4.7). The main thread only handles Socratic intake, report formatting, and the follow-up action menu — all on Haiku for cost efficiency.
<Response_Prefix>
Every response triggered by this skill MUST begin with [Model: <main-model> · Dispatched: <sub-summary>] per ../../common/model-routing-rule.md § Response Prefix Convention.
</Response_Prefix>
<Phase_Banner>
Multi-phase skill. Before each Agent(...) dispatch, emit ▶ phase=<id> (<label>) · agent=<name> · model=<Opus 4.7|Sonnet 4.6|Haiku 4.5> per ../../common/model-routing-rule.md § Phase Banner Convention.
</Phase_Banner>
<Team_Mode>
Type B (Coder ↔ Consultant) teamMode activates between Step 2 (reviewer full review) and Step 3 (report) when reviewer's findings include a business-alignment dimension (§ 1 Business Purpose, § 2 Rule Faithfulness, § 13 Cross-Module Side-Effects) AND the object touches 2+ modules. Reviewer becomes Worker, module consultants become Peers; consultants live-validate the reviewer's business-alignment findings. See team-mode.md. Base protocol: ../../common/team-consultation-protocol.md § Type B.
</Team_Mode>
<Use_When>
- User says "analyze", "review code", "check this class", "what's wrong with", "analyze code", or "code review"
- Before releasing a transport, to catch issues early
- When taking over existing ABAP code and wanting to understand its quality
- When optimizing performance of an ABAP program or class
- User wants where-used impact analysis before modifying an object </Use_When>
<Do_Not_Use_When>
- User wants to modify the code immediately →
/sc4sap:create-program(full program flows) or directUpdateClass/UpdateProgram/UpdateIncludeMCP calls - Object doesn't exist yet →
/sc4sap:create-object - User just wants to read the source →
ReadClass,ReadProgrametc. directly </Do_Not_Use_When>
<Session_Trust_Bootstrap> MANDATORY — runs as Step 0 before any MCP call or user interaction.
Invoke /sc4sap:trust-session with parent_skill=sc4sap:analyze-code to pre-grant all MCP tool + file-op permissions for this session (eliminates per-tool "Allow this tool?" prompts during the review flow).
- If
.sc4sap/session-trust.logalready has a line within the last 24h, skip silently. - Otherwise run it and surface the one-line confirmation.
Full spec: see ../trust-session/SKILL.md.
</Session_Trust_Bootstrap>
<Companion_Files> MANDATORY: Read the companion files below before executing.
| Companion | Scope |
|---|---|
analysis-dimensions.md |
9 common/ rule files that the reviewer agent (not main) loads + 14 evaluation dimensions |
workflow.md |
4-step execution flow: Identify → Review (delegated) → Report (branching) → Actions |
output-and-tools.md |
Report output format + MCP tool list used by the reviewer agent |
| </Companion_Files> |
<Execution_Summary>
Orchestration is 1 main-thread Socratic intake + one delegated dispatch to sap-code-reviewer + a branching report + main-thread action menu.
- Step 1 (main · Haiku) — Identify: ask for (or confirm) the ABAP object name + type; verify via
SearchObject. - Step 2 (delegated · Opus 4.7) — Dispatch to
sap-code-reviewerwith only the object reference. The reviewer agent itself reads source (viaGetClass/GetProgram/GetProgFullCode/...), runs structural analysis (GetAbapAST+GetAbapSemanticAnalysis+GetWhereUsed), loads the 9common/rule files, and evaluates all 14 dimensions. Returns: findings list (severity · location · rule ref · fix suggestion) + summary metrics. - Step 3 (branching):
- Branch A — canned (default: no Critical findings AND < 10 findings total) → main (Haiku) formats the standard report template from
output-and-tools.md. - Branch B — briefing (Critical present OR ≥ 10 findings) → dispatch
sap-writer(Haiku) for a rich reader-facing report with code examples and impact explanations. Fallback to Branch A on writer failure.
- Branch A — canned (default: no Critical findings AND < 10 findings total) → main (Haiku) formats the standard report template from
- Step 4 (main · Haiku) — Follow-up action menu: show where-used · explain finding #N · save report · delegate fix to
sap-executor(user's choice).
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 78 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 6a4fffa61c39
sc4sap:analyze-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository babamba2/superclaude-for-sap (52 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,347 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…