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 commands/airbone42/360-data-athlete/traininggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/airbone42/360-data-athleteWrote 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/airbone42/360-data-athlete/training)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/airbone42/360-data-athlete/training"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/airbone42/360-data-athlete/training.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00000 | $0.03194 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01597 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00639 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00319 |
Grade A, and why
training 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 4d 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 — 278 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/training — Generate today's plan
Build the training plan for today (or a given date).
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS
Optional: date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Default: today.
Workflow
Step 1: Fetch athlete context
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-.}"/scripts/fetch_context.py --date {DATE}
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-.}"/scripts/log_muscle_load.py --backfill 7 --silent
The backfill ensures all activities of the last 7 days are processed in
the muscle profile — even if new sessions came in since the last
/analyse. Idempotent, fail-soft; never blocks planning.
Check dataWarnings. If present: 1 line to the athlete, then continue.
Check athleteFeedback. If not "no feedback": show the feedback to the
athlete (1 line) and make sure to pass it to the planner.
Check skippedWorkouts. If present → inform the athlete and clean up:
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-.}"/scripts/delete_workouts.py --event-ids {IDs}
Check hrvReviewPending. If present → before the planner ask the
athlete (see CLAUDE.md "HRV readiness review"). Persist answer as NOTE,
then continue with step 1.5.
Step 1.5: Exercise re-evaluation (CONDITIONAL — only when flagged)
Check planningConstraints for the 🔄 Exercise re-evaluation due flag
(emitted by context_builder._compute_reeval_trigger at natural
boundaries — recovery week, periodization phase change, or staleness).
-
Flag absent (the normal case): skip this step entirely — the daily flow is unchanged. Do NOT run the reviewer; micro-progression via the specialists is enough.
-
Flag present: re-challenge the exercise selection before the specialists carry it forward:
- Load a wider type history for the affected pillar(s) so the reviewer
sees the real progression / sentiment trend:
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-.}"/scripts/fetch_type_history.py \ --date {DATE} --type WeightTraining --tags {pillar tags} --max-sessions 8 - Launch the
exercise-revieweragent in a pane. Pass: the flag line (which trigger fired), the type history, and the date. The agent readscompetition_plan.md,exercise_progressions.md(incl. theRe-Eval:blocks), andathlete_static.mditself. - Present the reviewer's keep/progress/swap/retire recommendations to the athlete as one proposal (Coach decisiveness rule) and ask for confirmation. Never swap/retire silently — restrictions and standing prescriptions clear only by explicit athlete confirmation (see CLAUDE.md "Never silently drop or replace standing prescriptions").
- On confirmation, write the outcome back into
config/exercise_progressions.md: update each reviewed exercise'sRe-Eval:line —Status=(keep/progress/swap/retire) andletzte-Re-Eval={DATE}. This resets the staleness clock so the flag clears next session. Route any confirmed swap into the relevant specialist in step 3.
- Load a wider type history for the affected pillar(s) so the reviewer
sees the real progression / sentiment trend:
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 278 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 14a47fe81b16
training is a command published in the GitHub repository airbone42/360-data-athlete (22 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 3,194 tokens. 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 commands, from other repositories
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.