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/authzed/authzed-marketplaceWrote 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/authzed/authzed-marketplace/audit-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/authzed/authzed-marketplace/audit-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/authzed/authzed-marketplace/audit-coverage/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/authzed/authzed-marketplace/audit-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/authzed/authzed-marketplace/audit-coverage.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01578 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00631 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00316 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
audit-coverage 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 — 181 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Audit Authorization Coverage
Produce a coverage matrix: for every permission declared in the schema, report whether an explicit CheckPermission call exists in application code.
Progress Tracking
Before starting, use TaskCreate to create a task for each step. Use TaskUpdate to mark each task in_progress when starting and completed when done.
Process
Step 1: Locate Schema
- Use provided path if given
- Otherwise glob for
*.zedin current directory - If multiple found, ask with AskUserQuestion
Step 2: Parse Schema for Permission Inventory
Read the .zed file. Extract every definition name and every permission name
declared within each definition. Build a list of (definition, permission) pairs.
Example:
document: [view, edit, delete]
organization: [view, manage]
project: [view, edit, delete, manage]
Step 3: Detect Language
Grep for CheckPermission call patterns to detect language:
- Go:
CheckPermission(ctx - TypeScript:
checkPermission( - Python:
CheckPermission(CheckPermissionRequest
Ask if ambiguous.
Step 4: Inventory Existing Checks
Grep the codebase for all existing CheckPermission calls. For each, extract the ObjectType and Permission string values.
Go patterns:
ObjectType: ObjectType:\s+"([^"]+)"
Permission: Permission:\s+"([^"]+)"
TypeScript patterns:
objectType: objectType:\s+'([^']+)'
permission: permission:\s+'([^']+)'
Python patterns:
object_type: object_type="([^"]+)"
permission: permission="([^"]+)"
Record: (object_type, permission, file, approximate line) for each match.
Step 5: Inventory Relationship Writes
Grep the codebase for WriteRelationships and DeleteRelationships calls. For each,
extract the ObjectType of the resource being written.
Go pattern: ObjectType:\s+"([^"]+)" near WriteRelationships
TypeScript: objectType:\s+'([^']+)' near writeRelationships
Python: object_type="([^"]+)" near WriteRelationships
For each resource type in the schema, check:
- ✅ Has write: at least one WriteRelationships call uses this object type
- ❌ No write: no WriteRelationships call found for this resource type (SpiceDB will have no relationships to evaluate -- all checks will return NO_PERMISSION)
- ✅ Has delete: at least one DeleteRelationships call cleans up this resource type on deletion
- ⚠️ Missing delete: resource type has no DeleteRelationships cleanup (orphaned relationships remain after resource deletion)
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 · 181 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A c219b286dc51
audit-coverage is a command published in the GitHub repository authzed/authzed-marketplace (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,578 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
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
speckit.bug.fix
Apply the remediation from a bug assessment and record what was changed.