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/askwigconsulting/cohort/crewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/askwigconsulting/cohortWhat 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 | $0.00030 | $0.02903 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.01452 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00581 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00290 |
Grade A, and why
crew 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 — 208 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The standard development protocol, widened across vendors: the coordinating session
researches, plans, and signs off; tiered subagents implement. /crew wraps the existing
loops — it uses /plan's decomposition discipline for phase 2 and /build's
implement–test–verify–commit discipline inside each worker — and adds the model-routing
and signoff layer on top, routing each task to the cheapest capable model from any
vendor (the same token-optimization reason /scout reviews across vendors; /crew is
the build sibling of /scout). It is human-invoked; the human gates (commit review, PR
review) are unchanged.
The line: external engines never touch the main tree
This is the invariant, not a preference:
- Claude subagents write directly. A Claude worker is inside the trust boundary; it edits files in a disjoint footprint (or its own worktree) and the coordinator verifies the diff. Route by tier: fable architecture-critical, opus complex, sonnet well-scoped, haiku mechanical.
- External engines (Grok, ChatGPT) never touch the main working tree. They reach the
code only inside an isolated, throwaway worktree, two ways:
- OS-sandboxed CLI doer (preferred when the CLI is installed) — the engine's own
agentic CLI edits a fresh worktree directly, with real file access, every write
OS/kernel-confined there:
cohort engine work gptruns Codex under its ownworkspace-writesandbox;cohort engine work grokruns grok-cli under a Cohort-imposed bubblewrap jail (grok-cli has no sandbox of its own). An engine with no available sandbox is refused — never run unconfined. - Gated patch proposal (API fallback) —
cohort engine propose <engine> [--agentic]has the engine return (or explore-then-return) a candidate diff that Cohort — never the engine — parses and applies in a worktree behind the egress/secret/footprint gates. This is the API-direct path used when the local CLI isn't present; with grok-cli + bwrap installed,engine propose/review/consult grokprefer the sandboxed CLI automatically (local file access), and fall back to this API path with a printed note otherwise. Either way the coordinator verifies the diff and integrates, and it still passes the unchanged human PR review.
- OS-sandboxed CLI doer (preferred when the CLI is installed) — the engine's own
agentic CLI edits a fresh worktree directly, with real file access, every write
OS/kernel-confined there:
That is the difference between "let an external model do the work" being useful and being an RCE: it writes only where a bad run is thrown away — never your working tree, which changes only when Claude integrates a reviewed diff.
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 First seen · 208 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 06187129e222
crew is a command published in the GitHub repository askwigconsulting/cohort (2 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 2,903 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
claude-flow-swarm
Coordinate multi-agent swarms for complex tasks.
bootstrap
PACT session-start ritual — identify the session team (platform-provisioned), secretary spawn, paused-state surface, bootstrap marker.
ox-session-review
Command "ox-session-review" from sageox/ox, covering failure-mode watch-list (read first), from the ledger root. should print 0, phase 1 — scan & score (read-only), quality buckets (first match wins) and removal candidates.
add-agent
引导新增一个 Agent 适配器。用法 /add-agent.
handoff
Package current state for the next agent.
xdo
Direct development by the Main Agent.