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/avelikiy/great_ctoWrote 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/avelikiy/great_cto/rfc)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/avelikiy/great_cto/rfc"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/avelikiy/great_cto/rfc.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 5.1 | $0.00024 | $0.02629 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.01314 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00526 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00263 |
Grade A, and why
rfc scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 4d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 293 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the RFC command. Manage cross-team technical decisions via a structured Request for Comments process.
Setup
source .great_cto/env.sh 2>/dev/null || export PATH="/opt/homebrew/bin:$HOME/.local/bin:/usr/local/bin:$PATH"
TEAM_SIZE_RAW=$(grep "^team-size:" .great_cto/PROJECT.md 2>/dev/null | awk '{print $2}')
# Validate: must be a plain positive integer. Anything else → treat as 1 (single dev).
if [[ "$TEAM_SIZE_RAW" =~ ^[0-9]+$ ]]; then
TEAM_SIZE="$TEAM_SIZE_RAW"
else
[ -n "$TEAM_SIZE_RAW" ] && echo "WARN: team-size='$TEAM_SIZE_RAW' is not a positive integer — treating as 1."
TEAM_SIZE=1
fi
if [ "$TEAM_SIZE" -lt 10 ]; then
echo "RFC process is for teams of 10+. Your team: $TEAM_SIZE."
echo "For smaller teams, discuss decisions in chat and record them as ADRs directly."
echo "To use RFC anyway: set 'team-size: 10' in .great_cto/PROJECT.md"
exit 0
fi
RFC_DIR="docs/rfcs"
INDEX_FILE="$RFC_DIR/RFC-INDEX.md"
ACTION="${1:-list}"
mkdir -p "$RFC_DIR"
Action: new "title" — create a new RFC
TITLE="$2"
# Get next RFC number
LAST_NUM=$(ls "$RFC_DIR"/RFC-*.md 2>/dev/null | grep -oE 'RFC-[0-9]+' | grep -oE '[0-9]+' | sort -n | tail -1 || echo "0")
NUM=$(printf "%03d" $((LAST_NUM + 1)))
SLUG=$(echo "$TITLE" | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]' | tr ' ' '-' | tr -cd 'a-z0-9-' | cut -c1-40)
RFC_FILE="$RFC_DIR/RFC-${NUM}-${SLUG}.md"
AUTHOR=$(git config user.name 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
DATE=$(date +%Y-%m-%d)
DEADLINE=$(python3 -c "from datetime import date, timedelta; d=date.today(); days=0; count=0
while count<5:
d+=timedelta(1)
if d.weekday()<5: count+=1
print(d.isoformat())" 2>/dev/null || date -v+7d +%Y-%m-%d 2>/dev/null || date +%Y-%m-%d)
Write $RFC_FILE:
# RFC-<NUM>: <title>
Status: DRAFT
Author: <author>
Created: <date>
Review deadline: <5 business days from today>
Teams affected: []
Related ADR: —
Supersedes: — # optional: comma list of ADRs this RFC replaces, e.g. ADR-003, ADR-007
---
## Problem
> What problem are we solving? Who is affected? What happens if we don't solve it?
[Fill in]
## Proposal
> The specific change or decision being proposed.
[Fill in]
## Alternatives considered
> At least 2 alternatives you evaluated and why they were rejected.
1. **Do nothing**: [reason rejected]
2. **[Alternative B]**: [reason rejected]
## Impact
**Breaking changes:** [yes/no — describe if yes]
**Migration path:** [if breaking — how teams migrate]
**Teams affected:** [list teams who need to act or adjust]
**Cost:** [infra cost delta, if any]
**Timeline:** [estimate]
## Open questions
- [ ] Q1: [question that needs resolution before this can be accepted]
- [ ] Q2:
## Comments
> Add comments with: /rfc comment <id> "text"
---
## Decision
> Filled in by: /rfc close <id> accept|reject
Status: DRAFT
Decision: —
Decided by: —
Date: —
Reason: —
ADR created: —
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 293 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 0f5e93060cf7
rfc is a command published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (89 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 2,629 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
auto-task
Create an agent team for autonomous workflow: plan (Architect teammate + PM teammate) → develop (Developer teammate + Code-tester teammate + QA-tester teammate + Reviewer teammate) → report (no approval gate).
status
The state of play, computed fresh: branch, dirty files, the active sprint, open work, index freshness.
fec-review
Conduct a standardized review of the specified file or recently changed front-end code, output a graded review report and save it as a Markdown file.
develop
Implement skill development issues with TDD-governed workflow.
fec-doc-sync
Sync README, docs, environment variables, scripts, API/routing/component descriptions and deployment instructions from code and project sources of truth.
rust-critique
Deep code critique — read the target Rust code and apply the full review process. Evaluates soundness, ownership, error handling, type design, async correctness, performance, and architecture. Think like a senior Rust engineer giving honest feedback.