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/askwigconsulting/cohortWrote 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/askwigconsulting/cohort/scout)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/askwigconsulting/cohort/scout"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/askwigconsulting/cohort/scout/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/askwigconsulting/cohort/scout"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/askwigconsulting/cohort/scout.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 | $0.00036 | $0.01005 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
scout 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Send a panel after it. /scout runs a multi-vendor adversarial review: a coordinator
decomposes the target into disjoint areas and routes each to the cheapest capable model
from any vendor, then has a second round try to break the first round's findings.
Reviewers are advisory and read-only — they find; the coordinator verifies; the human
decides. This is the review sibling of /crew.
Run /scout only from a coordinator tier (Fable, preferred, or Opus) — decomposition,
routing, and adversarial synthesis are the judgments a lower tier gets wrong.
1. Scope — carve disjoint areas
Define the target and split it into areas that don't overlap, so reviewers don't collide and coverage is legible: e.g. security/trust, correctness, architecture, product, docs. Assign the hardest, most ambiguous areas to the strongest models and the mechanical ones to the cheapest — that is the token-optimization the panel exists for.
2. Round 1 — fan out across vendors (≤20 in flight)
Each reviewer gets its area, all three lenses (defects weighted highest), and the operational gates (scope, evidence, adversarial self-check, verify, calibrate). Route by fit and cost:
-
Claude subagents — Fable for architecture-critical/ambiguous, Opus for complex, Sonnet for well-scoped, Haiku for mechanical/doc areas. They read the repo directly.
-
ChatGPT —
/consult-gpt(Codex CLI, read-only). Explores the repo itself. -
Grok —
cohort engine review grok --tier flagshipfor areas needing repo exploration, orcohort engine consult grok --tier flagshipwith a packaged bundle for a bounded question. When grok-cli + bwrap are installed these run through the local bubblewrap-sandboxed grok CLI (real, worktree-scoped repo access); if it is missing — or present but broken — they fall back to the API-direct agentic loop (gated tools, transcript recorded). Read-only, advisory; every path is egress-gated.The fallback is always announced on stderr, never silent. Read the note before the answer: the two channels differ in what the model could see (worktree-scoped file access versus the gated read-only toolbox), so an area reviewed over the fallback was reviewed with less context than one reviewed over the CLI. A gate refusal is different again — it is a refusal, never retried on the other channel.
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 · 79 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 30543619ac13
scout is a command published in the GitHub repository askwigconsulting/cohort (2 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 1,005 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).