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/athrael-soju/framework-generator/refinegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/athrael-soju/framework-generatorWrote 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/athrael-soju/framework-generator/refine)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/athrael-soju/framework-generator/refine"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/athrael-soju/framework-generator/refine.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 | $0.00010 | $0.00854 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00427 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
refine 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 — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refine
Specify each stage in detail.
Inputs
| Input | Source |
|---|---|
| framework_charter | Frame stage output |
| stage_map | Organize stage output |
| stage_activities | User input |
| context_tables | User input |
| output_template | User input |
| criteria | User input |
Input Format
From Frame stage (output/{date}/{name}/1-frame/charter.md):
## Problem
{Workflow being addressed}
## Scope
**In:** {What's covered}
**Out:** {What's excluded}
From Organize stage (output/{date}/{name}/2-organize/stage-map.md):
## Stages
| Stage | Purpose | Inputs | Outputs |
|-------|---------|--------|---------|
| {Name} | {Description} | {Inputs} | {Outputs} |
## Feedback Loops
| From | Condition | To |
User-provided domain knowledge:
domain_knowledge:
criteria: [Scoring criteria, thresholds]
categories: [Types, tiers, channels]
sources: [Where to get data]
constraints: [Rules, limits]
Process
For each stage in the stage map:
1. Define Activities - What happens in this stage:
- Break into discrete activities
- Each activity has inputs and outputs
- Activities should be concrete actions, not vague descriptions
2. Create Context Tables - Reference information needed:
- Categories, criteria, thresholds
- Options, channels, sources
- Any structured data the stage uses
3. Design Output Format - What the stage produces:
- Create a template showing structure
- Include placeholders for variable content
- Make it specific enough to be useful
4. Set Quality Criteria - How to know if the stage is done well:
- Checklist format (not prose)
- Each criterion is verifiable
- Cover completeness and correctness
5. Define Completion - What happens at stage end:
- What to present to user
- What approval is needed
- What's the next stage
Interaction
Use the AskUserQuestion tool for:
- Gathering domain-specific criteria and thresholds
- Choosing between output format options
- Confirming activity breakdowns per stage
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 · 155 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A c10194a3b213
refine is a command published in the GitHub repository athrael-soju/framework-generator (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 854 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
log-time
Log work hours on an Atera ticket.
run-powershell
Execute a PowerShell script on an Atera agent.
eol-report
EOL/EOS risk report — devices, OS versions, and firmware approaching or past end-of-life/end-of-support, prioritized by criticality.
update-ticket
Update fields on an existing Atera ticket.
alert-triage
Triage open Auvik alerts, rank by severity, and recommend dismissals for known noise.
review-pr
Multi-agent PR review with four modes (review, re-review, self-review, address-feedback) - spawns parallel subagents, saves diff to /tmp for context efficiency, supports file exclusion patterns.