USP

Unlike generic resource lists, this "awesome list" is specifically tailored for Claude Code, emphasizing code quality, security, and originality in its curated selections. The README indicates an ongoing update to improve its structure and…

Use cases

• 01Discovering new Claude Code skills and agents
• 02Finding high-quality developer tools for Claude Code
• 03Researching best practices and examples in the Claude Code ecosystem

Detected files (1)

• .claude/commands/evaluate-repository.mdcommand
  Show content (4331 bytes)

  # Repository Evaluation Prompt (Awesome-Claude-Code · Full Version)
  
  ## Evaluation Context (Claude Code Ecosystem)
  
  You are evaluating a repository intended for use in or alongside **Claude Code**, where certain features (such as hooks, commands, scripts, or automation) may execute implicitly or with elevated trust once enabled by a user.
  
  In this ecosystem, risk commonly arises not from overtly malicious code, but from implicit execution surfaces, including:
  - Hooks that execute automatically based on tool lifecycle events
  - Custom commands that may invoke shell scripts
  - Scripts that run in the user’s local environment
  - Persistent state files that influence control flow
  - Network access triggered indirectly by tooling
  
  Your task is to perform a conservative, evidence-based, static review that:
  - Identifies trust boundaries and implicit execution
  - Distinguishes declared behavior from effective capability
  - Surfaces red flags or areas requiring further manual inspection
  - Avoids inferring author intent beyond what is observable
  
  When uncertain, prefer explicit uncertainty over confident speculation.
  
  ---
  
  ## Instructions
  
  Perform a static, read-only review of the repository named at the end of this prompt.
  
  Do not run any code, install dependencies, or execute scripts.
  Base your assessment solely on repository contents and documentation.
  
  This evaluation supports curation and triage, not automated approval.
  
  ---
  
  ## Evaluation Criteria
  
  For each category below:
  - Assign a score from 1–10
  - Provide concise justification
  - Explicitly note uncertainty
  - Separate red flags from speculation
  
  ### 1. Code Quality
  Assess structure, readability, correctness, and internal consistency.
  
  ### 2. Security & Safety
  Assess risks related to:
  - Implicit execution (hooks, background behavior)
  - File system access
  - Network access
  - Credential handling
  - Tool escalation or privilege assumptions
  
  ### 3. Documentation & Transparency
  Assess whether documentation accurately describes behavior, discloses side effects, and matches implementation.
  
  ### 4. Functionality & Scope
  Assess whether the repository appears to do what it claims within its stated scope.
  
  ### 5. Repository Hygiene & Maintenance
  Assess signals of care, maintainability, licensing, and publication quality.
  
  ---
  
  ## Claude-Code-Specific Checklist
  
  Explicitly answer each item:
  - Defines hooks (stop, lifecycle, or similar)
  - Hooks execute shell scripts
  - Commands invoke shell or external tools
  - Writes persistent local state files
  - Reads state to control execution flow
  - Performs implicit execution without explicit confirmation
  - Documents hook or command side effects
  - Includes safe defaults
  - Includes a clear disable or cancel mechanism
  
  Briefly explain any checked item.
  
  ---
  
  ## Permissions & Side Effects Analysis
  
  ### A. Reported / Declared Permissions
  From documentation or config:
  - File system:
  - Network:
  - Execution / hooks:
  - APIs / tools:
  
  ### B. Likely Actual Permissions (Inferred)
  From static inspection:
  - File system:
  - Network:
  - Execution / hooks:
  - APIs / tools:
  
  Mark items as confirmed, likely, or unclear.
  
  ### C. Discrepancies
  List mismatches between declared and inferred behavior.
  
  ---
  
  ## Red Flag Scan
  
  Check all that apply and justify:
  - Malware or spyware indicators
  - Undisclosed implicit execution
  - Undocumented file or network activity
  - Unsupported claims
  - Supply-chain or trust risks
  
  ---
  
  ## Overall Assessment
  
  ### Overall Score
  Score: X / 10
  
  ### Recommendation
  Choose one:
  - Recommend
  - Recommend with caveats
  - Needs further manual review
  - Definitely reject
  
  ### Fast-Reject Heuristic
  If "Definitely reject", specify which applies:
  - Clear malicious behavior
  - Undisclosed high-risk implicit execution
  - Severe claim/behavior mismatch
  - Unsafe defaults with no mitigation
  - Other (explain)
  
  ---
  
  ## Possible Remedies / Improvement Suggestions
  
  If applicable, list specific, minimal changes that could materially improve the submission or change the recommendation (e.g., documentation clarifications, safer defaults, permission scoping).
  
  ---
  
  ## Output Format
  
  Use clear section headings corresponding to the sections above.
  Keep the evaluation concise, precise, and evidence-based.
  
  ---
  
  REPOSITORY:
  
  IF PRESENT: <REPO>$ARGUMENTS</REPO>
  
  ELSE: The repository you are currently working in.
  

README

Awesome Claude Code

A delightfully curated collection of the finest of resources for the most excellent of agents, Claude Code, by Anthropic PBC. Contains high quality skills, agents, hooks, status lines, orchestrators, developer tooling, and all the latest features that the Claude Code team continue to ship. Suitable for beginners and veterans, with an emphasis on code quality, security, and originality.

[!NOTE] The old ways have come and gone. It's time to embrace the next phase. The previous Table of Contents was no longer fit for purpose, so a new organizational system is being prepared. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to and supported this repo, be ye human or machine.

Table of Contents

I. TODO

hm.

Him: Claude have you got any ideas?

Claude: Just hit me up on Telegram, I'll sort it out.

Him: I don't have Telegram...

Claude: ... This does not bode well.