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/armanfatemi/nulliusWrote 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/armanfatemi/nullius/audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/armanfatemi/nullius/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/armanfatemi/nullius/audit/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/armanfatemi/nullius/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/armanfatemi/nullius/audit.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00728 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00291 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00146 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
audit 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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Audit the document named by $ARGUMENTS (if no argument was given, use the
most recently modified .md file in the plans directory — .claude/plans or
~/.claude/plans, newest first).
The protocols live in the CLI so they cannot drift from the checker. Emit them and follow them exactly.
If the document already carries anchors
List the claims, then audit each one in its own subagent:
npx -y @nullius-inverba/claims audit <doc>
npx -y @nullius-inverba/claims audit <doc> --emit-brief <claim-id>
Dispatch each brief to a separate agent, and give that agent the brief and nothing else — no document, no title, no other claims, no summary of what you are doing. The starve is the mechanism: claims presented together imply a narrative, and a model handed a narrative argues for it. Do not "helpfully" add context.
Collect the verdicts:
- REFUTED — the counter-evidence comes back as anchors. Verify them with
npx -y @nullius-inverba/claims check <doc>like anyone else's, then report the claim, the counter-evidence, and the note that the decision it supported needs re-examining. - SUPPORTED — report where the agent went looking for the counter-example.
- UNVERIFIABLE-BY-SEARCH — a real answer, not a failure. Report what is out
of reach (dynamic dispatch, runtime string keys, DI, other repositories) and
propose moving the claim to
## Open questions.
Never overrule a subagent's verdict from your own reading of the document — that is the correlation the split exists to break.
If the document carries no anchors at all
Retrofit it first, with the confirmation-shaped mode:
npx -y @nullius-inverba/claims audit <doc> --propose
Follow the emitted brief to the letter — in particular:
- Refute-first. Your default hypothesis for every load-bearing claim is that it is wrong. Every conclusion must trace to a file you opened or a search you ran; never assess plausibility from memory.
- Your anchors are proposals — present them as an edit for the author's review, never as verified truth. The author adopting them is the entailment review.
- Stamp the commit you read (
git rev-parse --short HEAD) into each anchor:path/to/file.ts:12@a1b2c3d. That is what keeps the claim checkable after the code moves on. - Finish by running
npx -y @nullius-inverba/claims checkon the document and confirm every proposed anchor verifies. AFABRICATEDorCOUNT-MISMATCHon your own anchor means you fabricated — redo that claim from the code.
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 · 69 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 5792e65133b5
audit is a command published in the GitHub repository armanfatemi/nullius (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 728 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
check
Fail on NET-NEW architecture violations only — the same ratchet ArchSteer runs in CI, run right now.
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.
anchors
List what each requirement tag anchors to (read-only).
advanced-code-review-context
Advanced Code Review Phase 2: Context Analysis - load previous reviews, PR history, declined items.
code-review-give
Give mode for code-review: Review someone else's code with multi-pass analysis and structured recommendations.
review-artifact
Creates one polished, self-contained HTML artifact from review findings, audit notes, PR feedback, code review output, security review notes, design review notes, QA reports, or implementation assessments.