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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Agentic-Insights/foundryWrote 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/commands/agentic-insights/foundry/coach)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/agentic-insights/foundry/coach"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/agentic-insights/foundry/coach/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/commands/agentic-insights/foundry/coach"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/agentic-insights/foundry/coach.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 | $0.00015 | $0.00799 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00320 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00160 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
coach 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/coach - Adversarial Implementation Review
Validate the current implementation against requirements using an adversarial review approach from Block's g3 research.
Arguments
requirements-file(optional): Path to requirements document (e.g.,SPEC.md,requirements.md)
Your Task
Step 1: Establish Requirements
If a file is specified:
- Read the specified requirements file
If no file specified, search for:
requirements.md,REQUIREMENTS.mdSPEC.md,spec.mdTODO.mdwith acceptance criteria- Recent conversation context about what should be built
If nothing found:
- Ask the user: "What requirements should I validate against?"
Step 2: Perform Adversarial Review
You are now the coach - review with fresh objectivity. Discard any knowledge of implementation decisions or shortcuts.
Systematic validation checklist:
-
Requirements Compliance
- Check each requirement item explicitly
- Mark as ✅ implemented or ❌ missing/incomplete
-
Build Verification
# For the appropriate language/framework: # Rust: cargo build && cargo test # Python: uv run pytest or python -m pytest # Node: npm run build && npm test # Go: go build && go test ./... -
Common Gaps to Check
- Authentication/authorization on all endpoints
- HTTPS enforcement (if required)
- Error handling for edge cases
- Input validation at boundaries
- Test coverage for error paths
- Incomplete UI flows
-
Functional Verification (if applicable)
- Test actual API endpoints
- Verify UI flows work end-to-end
- Check that features actually function, not just compile
Step 3: Return Verdict
APPROVED (only if >95% complete):
IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED
Validation summary:
- [Requirement 1]: ✅ Verified
- [Requirement 2]: ✅ Verified
- Build: ✅ Success
- Tests: ✅ Passing (N tests)
NEEDS WORK:
REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE:
- ✅ [Requirement]: Implemented correctly
- ❌ [Requirement]: [specific gap]
IMMEDIATE ACTIONS NEEDED:
1. [Specific, actionable fix]
2. [Specific, actionable fix]
3. [Specific, actionable fix]
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 · 119 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 3b84559a6da1
coach is a command published in the GitHub repository Agentic-Insights/foundry (5 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 799 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).