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 mitodl/agent-kit --skill witan-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mitodl/agent-kitWrote 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/mitodl/agent-kit/witan-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mitodl/agent-kit/witan-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mitodl/agent-kit/witan-code/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/mitodl/agent-kit/witan-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mitodl/agent-kit/witan-code.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 | $0.00120 | $0.01996 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00048 | $0.00798 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00399 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00200 |
Grade A, and why
witan-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 15d 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 — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Graph
A per-repo, tree-sitter-derived graph of symbols (functions, methods, classes,
modules) and their relationships (Calls, References, Imports,
Inherits), plus a cross-repo bridge linking services through shared
contracts (env vars, HTTP endpoints, packages, deployments). Indexing is
automatic — a session-start hook seeds/refreshes the whole repo in the
background, and a post-edit hook incrementally reindexes each file you edit
(Claude Code's SessionStart/PostToolUse hooks; under Pi, the witan-code
extension's session_start/tool_result handlers) — so you rarely need to
invoke the CLI yourself.
When to use this vs. grep / the Explore agent
Reach for code_* tools when the question is structural, not textual:
- "Where is
Service.rundefined?" →code_find_definition/code_search_symbol - "What calls this function, anywhere in the repo?" →
code_callers/code_find_references - "If I change this, what breaks?" (transitive blast radius) →
code_impact - "What symbols does this file define?" →
code_symbols_in_file - "Which other repo reads this env var / calls this endpoint / imports this package?" →
code_interface_consumers/code_interface_providers/code_cross_repo_impact
Grep is still the right tool for literal string/comment searches, one-off text
matches, or a repo with no code graph yet. The two are complementary: grep
finds text; code_* tools resolve symbols and their relationships,
which grep cannot do (it can't tell you a function's transitive callers or
which service consumes an endpoint another service serves).
Caveat: Calls/References/Imports/Inherits edges are heuristic
(syntactic name resolution, not a true call graph) — treat impact/caller
results as a high-recall starting point, not a verified answer. Defines and
Contains are exact.
On invocation
- No args → Check readiness, then show the tool reference below.
reindex→ call thecode_reindexMCP tool (orwitan-code reindexif running the CLI directly) to force a full rebuild of the current repo, ignoring content hashes. Use when the graph looks stale and you don't want to wait for the incremental hooks to catch up.
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.
- 15d ago Changed · +11 lines 805640d5519b
- 22d ago Changed · +25 lines 8dcc0eb85a07
- 1mo ago First seen · 117 lines · 120 tokens per session scan A 781041fd2123
witan-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository mitodl/agent-kit (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed BSD-3-Clause. It adds 120 tokens to every session and 1,996 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…
gsd-ns-review
quality gates | code review debug audit security eval ui.
gitnexus
A code-graph analysis add-on for examining an existing codebase, including symbols, call paths, execution flows, and effects across repositories. It can query GitNexus through its command-line or MCP interfaces.
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…
cleanup-code-inspections
Reduce technical debt and improve code quality by systematically resolving static analysis warnings.
superlint
This skill describes the mandatory standard operating procedure for using our internal SuperLint tool. Use this when tasks require fixing code quality issues according to corporate standards.