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/datit309/supergraph/analyzenpx skills add datit309/supergraph --skill analyzegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/datit309/supergraphWhat 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 | $0.00033 | $0.00926 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00463 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00185 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
analyze 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 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.
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 — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/supergraph:analyze
Analyze first, implement never. No code until approach is approved.
Announce: "🔍 /supergraph:analyze — framing problem, checking graph risk..."
When
- Ambiguous requirements
- Multiple valid approaches
- Task spans modules
- Graph shows high blast-risk (hub/bridge nodes)
- User says "how should I..." or "what's the best way..."
Skip for: typo fixes, config changes, clear mechanical edits.
Workflow
0. Read CONTEXT.md (if exists):
cat CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null | head -60
Use existing domain vocabulary in all analysis — never invent new terms for concepts already named.
1. Frame the problem:
- Goal: [one sentence]
- Known constraints
- Open questions
1b. Score ambiguity (before grilling):
| Signal | +1 if... |
|---|---|
| Ambiguous scope | touches multiple modules without naming one |
| No explicit path | no file/package/feature named |
| Multiple intents | could be bug fix, feature, refactor, or question |
| First interaction | no established context this session |
| Score | Action |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | Skip grilling — proceed with best available info |
| 2 | Show 1-line routing summary, wait for confirm |
| 3–4 | Grill: ask focused questions with recommended options |
Auto-skip grilling entirely if: user said "go"/"just do it", trivial fix (<15 lines, 1 file), explicit mode command, or active plan already exists.
Grilling rules: ONE question at a time, offer recommended answer, max 3 questions. Stop when goal + constraints are clear enough that approach won't reverse on new info.
2. Check graph risk: Reuse /supergraph:scan context (CBM_PROJECT, codebase-memory-mcp, see references/codebase-memory-contract.md). If targets identified, call detect_changes, search_graph, trace_path, get_architecture, recipes hubs/bridges/cross-boundary. Empty = evidence. >20 files STOP.
2b. Serena (optional): See serena/SKILL.md:Setup. If scan not run, call initial_instructions first, then find_referencing_symbols/find_implementations per target. Skip if 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.
- yesterday First seen · 99 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 70a0430e77b3
analyze is a skill published in the GitHub repository datit309/supergraph (21 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 926 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
playwright-cli
Automates browser interactions for testing and validating your own web applications using playwright-cli. Use when you need terminal-first browser control for navigation, form filling, screenshots, tracing, bound browser sessions, debugging, or generating Playwright test code. Only use against applications you own or…
migrate
Inventory an existing spec-driven project and apply bounded migrations to jig defaults: report, adopt-layout, rename-decisions, split-slices, slice-to-spec, seed-decisions, and copy-machinery. Use when the user says migrate this project to jig, adopt jig here, this repo already has specs — set up jig, scaffold-init…
adr-workflow
Scaffold, accept, index, and link Architectural Decision Records (ADRs). Use when the user says "write an ADR", "record this decision", "resolve [deferred item] with an ADR", "supersede ADR-NNNN", or otherwise wants to capture a hard-to-reverse decision in docs/decisions/. Also use when a refinement-todo entry needs…
bug-fix
Drive the teeth-gated lifecycle for reported defects: diagnose root cause, prove it, and prevent regression through REPORTED → DIAGNOSING → ROOTCAUSED → FIXING → REVIEWED → DONE, with VERIFIED, ESCALATED, and RESOLVEDONMAIN paths where needed. Auto-fires on fix this bug, debug this, root-cause this, this regressed…
analyze
Cross-artifact consistency report for jig specs — a non-destructive six-category audit at CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW severity, covering duplication, ambiguity, underspecification, principle violations, coverage gaps, and terminology drift. Auto-triggers when you say analyze this spec, check for inconsistencies, audit…
arch-review
Team baseline for architecture, design-doc, and RFC review — produces summary, strengths, concerns, and open questions. Auto-triggers when you say review this design, review this architecture, review this proposal, review my RFC, poke holes in this proposal, is this design sound, or critique this tech spec. Defers to…