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/ground)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/armanfatemi/nullius/ground"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/armanfatemi/nullius/ground/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/ground"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/armanfatemi/nullius/ground.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00249 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00100 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00050 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
ground 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.
What it actually says
Verify Evidence Anchors with the nullius checker.
If $ARGUMENTS names one or more files or globs, run:
npx -y @nullius-inverba/claims check $ARGUMENTS
If no argument was given, locate the most recently modified .md file in the
plans directory (.claude/plans or ~/.claude/plans, newest first) and check
that file instead.
Then:
- If every marker verifies, say so in one line and stop.
- For each failing verdict, open the cited file, fix the citation in the
document — or, if the claim itself cannot be supported, move it to an
## Open questionssection. AFABRICATEDorCOUNT-MISMATCHverdict is not a citation typo: re-examine the decision that claim was supporting, and say so explicitly. - If the document contains load-bearing claims about existing code with no anchors at all, flag them — a document with no grounding markers is not a pass.
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 · 28 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 047badfe8e27
ground is a command published in the GitHub repository armanfatemi/nullius (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 249 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.