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/cdeust/ai-architect-mcp-codebase/integritygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cdeust/ai-architect-mcp-codebaseWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00210 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00105 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00042 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00021 |
Grade A, and why
integrity 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.
What it actually says
Quick Integrity Audit
Fast integrity check on the current work. Feynman-style: what could invalidate this?
Instructions
-
Look at the recent work in this session (recent commits, staged changes, or $ARGUMENTS if provided).
-
For the main claim/result/change, list 3-5 things that could invalidate it, ranked by damage.
-
For each: is there evidence for or against it? Has it been checked?
-
Self-deception check: is the team invested in this being true? What procedural check would catch bias?
-
Cargo-cult check: is any procedure being followed "because successful teams do it" without the causal mechanism?
-
Present as:
Quick Integrity Audit What could invalidate this: 1. [highest damage] — checked: [yes/no] 2. ... Self-deception risk: [high/medium/low] Cargo cult candidates: [list or none]
$ARGUMENTS
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 · 30 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 7079215296b8
integrity is a command published in the GitHub repository cdeust/ai-architect-mcp-codebase (4 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 210 tokens. 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
brooks-audit
Run a Brooks-Lint architecture audit.
brooks-health
Run a Brooks-Lint codebase health dashboard across all four dimensions.
daily-standup
Génération Résumé Daily Stand-up.
deploy
Build, test, deploy with staged rollout.
fix-issue
Analyze and fix a reported bug or issue systematically.
simplify
Reduce complexity without changing behavior — code simplification.