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/andkirby/markdown-ticket/pocgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/andkirby/markdown-ticketWrote 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/andkirby/markdown-ticket/poc)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/andkirby/markdown-ticket/poc"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/andkirby/markdown-ticket/poc.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 | $0.03453 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01726 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00691 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00345 |
Grade A, and why
poc 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 3d 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 — 569 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MDT Proof of Concept Workflow (v1)
Validate uncertain technical decisions through hands-on experimentation before committing to architecture.
Core Principle: When documentation and research can't answer "will this work?", build a throwaway spike to find out.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
Session Context
Use {TICKETS_PATH} in all file path templates below (if it's not defined read ticketsPath key from .mdt-config.toml).
Problem This Solves
Some technical decisions can't be validated through documentation alone:
- "Does library X support feature Y in our context?"
- "Can we achieve acceptable performance with approach Z?"
- "How does service A behave when B happens?"
- "What's the actual API shape returned by C?"
Without hands-on validation, architecture commits to unproven approaches, leading to:
- Mid-implementation pivots (waste)
- Workarounds for discovered limitations (debt)
- Incorrect assumptions baked into tests (fragile)
PoC resolves uncertainty before architecture locks in decisions.
When to Use
Explicit Trigger (User Request)
User says:
- "I need to verify X works"
- "Not sure if library supports Y"
- "Build a proof of concept for Z"
- "Let's spike on this before architecture"
Detected Trigger (From /mdt:architecture)
Architecture workflow detects uncertainty and suggests PoC:
⚠️ **Technical Uncertainty Detected**
| Question | Why It Matters | Suggestion |
|----------|----------------|------------|
| {uncertainty} | {impact on design} | `/mdt:poc {CR-KEY} --question "{question}"` |
Recommend: Run PoC before finalizing architecture.
Open Questions in CR
CR contains unresolved technical questions:
## Open Questions
- [ ] Does Express support dynamic port binding with graceful shutdown?
- [ ] Can pdf-lib handle encrypted PDFs without external dependencies?
Do NOT Use When
- Question can be answered by reading documentation
- Decision is about code organization (that's architecture)
- Feature is well-understood, just needs implementation
- Time pressure doesn't allow thorough investigation
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 569 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 3a1c34424f92
poc is a command published in the GitHub repository andkirby/markdown-ticket (5 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 3,453 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 2026-08-31.
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.