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/akougkas/wtf-pWrote 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/akougkas/wtf-p/wtfp-list-assumptions)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/akougkas/wtf-p/wtfp-list-assumptions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/akougkas/wtf-p/wtfp-list-assumptions/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/akougkas/wtf-p/wtfp-list-assumptions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/akougkas/wtf-p/wtfp-list-assumptions.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00606 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00303 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00121 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
wtfp:list-assumptions scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 11d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
84% identical to wtfp:execute-outline — 40 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 60 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
List section assumptions
@${PLUGIN_ROOT}/project/README.md @${PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/wtfp-plan-section/SKILL.md @${PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/wtfp-plan-section/references/actions.md
Record contract
Read: project://manifest, project://decisions, project://structure/outline, project://sections/{section}.
Produce: none.
Resolve every logical URI through the host adapter. Portable v1 JSON records are the source of truth: schema-validate before a write, preserve stable IDs, update revision and timestamps where required, and replace records atomically. Never pass a literal logical URI to a shell command or infer record state from a legacy Markdown control file.
Manuscript prose and supporting context, research, plan, review, summary, handoff, and deliverable artifacts retain their authored format (normally Markdown). Link them from the relevant v1 record; do not convert manuscript prose into project-state JSON.
Procedure
- Extract explicit and implicit assumptions from manifest, decisions, outline, section claims, and evidence.
- Classify each as locked, deferred, discretionary, supported, disputed, or unverified and cite its source URI.
- Return findings only; recommend a separate author decision or research action for unresolved assumptions.
Safety and completion
Do not initialize a repository or run branch, stage, commit, merge, push, or publish operations. If requested, return a clearly labeled optional handoff for a separately authorized action.
Report the logical resources read, created, updated, archived, or deleted; the gates crossed; validation results; unresolved checkpoints; and the safest next action. Never claim a mutation that was not verified.
Bound action contract and schemas
@${PLUGIN_ROOT}/actions/list-assumptions.json @${PLUGIN_ROOT}/project/schemas/common.schema.json @${PLUGIN_ROOT}/project/schemas/decisions.schema.json @${PLUGIN_ROOT}/project/templates/decisions.json @${PLUGIN_ROOT}/project/schemas/manifest.schema.json @${PLUGIN_ROOT}/project/templates/manifest.json @${PLUGIN_ROOT}/project/schemas/outline.schema.json @${PLUGIN_ROOT}/project/templates/outline.json @${PLUGIN_ROOT}/project/schemas/section.schema.json @${PLUGIN_ROOT}/project/templates/section.json
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 60 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A f45e3959a88a
wtfp:list-assumptions is a command published in the GitHub repository akougkas/wtf-p (19 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 606 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 84% identical to wtfp:execute-outline, differing in 40 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
retro
Reflect on the current research session and collect improvement suggestions.
setup_research_plan
Set up or start a research project.
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.