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 skills add ed3dai/ed3d-plugins --skill investigating-a-codebasegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ed3dai/ed3d-pluginsWrote 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/ed3dai/ed3d-plugins/investigating-a-codebase)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ed3dai/ed3d-plugins/investigating-a-codebase"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ed3dai/ed3d-plugins/investigating-a-codebase/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/ed3dai/ed3d-plugins/investigating-a-codebase"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ed3dai/ed3d-plugins/investigating-a-codebase.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00058 | $0.01071 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00428 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00214 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00107 |
Grade A, and why
investigating-a-codebase 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 1mo 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 115 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 86dacad6e9d2
investigating-a-codebase is a skill published in the GitHub repository ed3dai/ed3d-plugins (251 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 1,071 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
health-check
Runs plugin health checks (venv packages, skill registration, and album slug collisions). Use when the user asks to check plugin health, verify setup, or troubleshoot missing skills.
issue-analyze
GitHub Issue and PR review thread deep analysis with Codex blind verdict. Use when: analyzing issue root cause, classifying problems, investigation planning, triaging PR review comments for actionability. Not for: fixing bugs (use bug-fix), code exploration (use code-explore). Output: classified analysis + verdict…
code-explore
Pure Claude code investigation. Use when: tracing execution paths, understanding architecture, diagnosing issues. Not for: dual-perspective review (use code-investigate), code review (use codex-code-review). Output: analysis report with findings.
debug
Interactive debugging workflow with hypothesis-driven probe loop. Use when: unknown bugs, script errors, silent failures, troubleshooting. Not for: known bugs (use bug-fix), GitHub issue analysis (use issue-analyze), code understanding (use code-explore). Output: debug report with probe journal + root cause + fix.
code-investigate
Dual-perspective code investigation. Use when: deep code analysis needing both Claude and Codex perspectives. Not for: quick exploration (use code-explore), code review (use codex-code-review). Output: integrated findings from dual analysis.
git-investigate
Git history investigation. Use when: tracking code changes, finding where bugs were introduced, root cause analysis. Not for: code exploration (use code-explore), issue analysis (use issue-analyze). Output: history trace + root cause report.