Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add AleksandarBisevac/claude-plugins/plugin install auditWrote 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/aleksandarbisevac/claude-plugins/task)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/aleksandarbisevac/claude-plugins/task"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/aleksandarbisevac/claude-plugins/task/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/aleksandarbisevac/claude-plugins/task"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/aleksandarbisevac/claude-plugins/task.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 | $0.00314 | $0.02711 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00126 | $0.01084 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00063 | $0.00542 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00271 |
Grade A, and why
task scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/audit:task — add a task to the manifest, promote one, close one, re-open one, move one between phases, block one, note on one, or cancel one
Every verb is one call to the writer, which takes the index lock, revalidates, rolls back on a
finding and journals the write itself - so nothing here is a hand edit and no lock is held by
hand. T below is python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/manifest/audit-task.py". An unknown or
empty verb: print the hint and stop.
The flags are the interface; the dialogue is the fallback. Pass what the caller already
decided as flags, and ask only for what is missing. A flag another verb reads exits 2 naming that
verb (scope --outcome is refused); relay it rather than retrying.
The operator's words go in VERBATIM: a --reason is theirs, unparaphrased, and reaches the
hash-chained journal, as do --text and --description; - reads the value off stdin. Print
the writer's output as it came - a line naming what was written and the file, then any gate
basis, ready now command and warning about the id it wrote; --verbose prints the rest.
Exit codes, every verb: 0 written. 1 the write would leave the plan invalid - rolled back,
the findings printed; fix the inputs. 2 usage - the message names the choices; ask, adjust,
re-run. 3 the index lock is held by a live run - stop, do not take it over. 4 the lock looks
abandoned - ask the human (AskUserQuestion), then re-run with --takeover.
Subcommand: add "<title>" [--phase <id>]
- Phase. Pass
--phasewhen given. Without it the writer takes the one running phase, or exits 2 naming the choices: ask which (AskUserQuestion), or offer/audit:phase addfor a new one - on a phase branch,/audit:phase add ... --park. A parked proposal already covering the work → offer/audit:propose materialize <PROP-id>first. - Gather the answers (ask only for what's missing):
--description(the brief - on stdin with--description -and a quoted heredoc whenever it holds backticks or code punctuation, since a shell eats a backticked span and the writer refuses the hole it leaves);--files;--outputsfor files the task produces;--tests-mode tdd|regression|gate-only;--tests-add "<path>: <what it asserts>"- the leading path is what reachesfilesandfileIndex;--gateonly to override the derived gate,--gate-clearfor none;--failing-from <runId>for a fix task after a red sign-off run;--risk;--model(sonnetis the floor for fix work, neverhaiku);--blocked-by/--depends-on. Skills come from one source:
Offer the area defaults, names that output carries (never invented ones), andpython3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/status/audit-status.py" --json --discovery --section discoverynull(none applies; it stops the area fallback); then--skills a,b,--skills null, or omit the flag. - Run it, the brief on stdin:
T add "<title>" --phase <id> --description - --files a,b --tests-mode regression <<'BRIEF' <why & how> BRIEF--dry-runvalidates and writes nothing.--fixes <findingId>adds a fix task for review findings - the drive's triage does that itself.--bug <bugId>makes it the fix task for a bug and writes both halves of the link in the one write - the task'sbugIdin its shard, the bug'staskIdandstatus: in_progressin the index; a bug another live task is already fixing is refused by name (/audit:bug fixis the usual door).
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.
- 2d ago Changed c52572a5d235
- 5d ago Changed · +16 lines · +17 tokens per session 282090567acc
- 9d ago Changed · -896 lines · +19 tokens per session 49fed58c849c
- 19d ago Changed · +68 lines f15dccf592af
- 21d ago Changed · +248 lines · +69 tokens per session 20d666f57ec7
- 1mo ago Changed · +262 lines · +60 tokens per session 521578678fdd
- 1mo ago Changed · +96 lines 20edc6f1c57a
- 1mo ago First seen · 335 lines · 149 tokens per session scan A 227613559cee
task is a command published in the GitHub repository AleksandarBisevac/claude-plugins (4 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 314 tokens to every session and 2,711 once invoked, about $0.0013 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
poam-review
Review and manage Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M).
sdlc-implement
Standalone issue implementation with Ralph Loop — implements a single Linear issue or free-form spec using fullstack-engineer + self-correcting retry loop.
sdlc
Master orchestrator for the complete 5-phase SDLC pipeline. Runs all phases sequentially with approval gates and handoffs between each phase. Organizes artifacts into handoffs/, docs/, and projects/ directories.
to-issues
Create one Linear issue per slice from an existing scope.json. Run standalone to (re)create issues without rerunning the full Plan phase. Falls back to docs/issues.md if Linear MCP is unavailable.
sdlc-plan
Phase 1 — Plan. Runs product-manager grill-me interview + slice decomposition, then publishes PRD and creates issues. Invokes exactly 1 agent.
spec
A requirements-planning command for OpenSpec, a tool that records software changes as proposals, specification updates, and task lists. It clarifies the request, challenges risky assumptions, and pauses for approval before implementation.