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/chappygo-os/atomic-spec/analyze-competitorsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Chappygo-OS/Atomic-SpecWrote 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/chappygo-os/atomic-spec/analyze-competitors)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/chappygo-os/atomic-spec/analyze-competitors"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/chappygo-os/atomic-spec/analyze-competitors.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 | $0.00019 | $0.02677 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01339 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00535 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00268 |
Grade A, and why
analyze-competitors 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 5d 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 — 373 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Outline
This command creates structured competitive analysis following Station 03 (Discovery) procedures. The output is optional for downstream commands - if the user rejects it, delete it entirely so future commands proceed without competitive context.
Registry Protocol (Constitution Directive 7)
Follow _registry-protocol.md:
- On entry: Read
specs/_defaults/registry.yaml. Focus onmarket.*,audience.*, andpositioning.*sections so the analysis is anchored to the project's established market posture rather than derived in isolation. - During: If the research surfaces market segments, audience personas, or positioning axes the project has not yet declared, apply Scenario A/B/C from the protocol (re-use, add-to-registry via HITL, or flag a deviation).
- On exit: Before writing
summary.md, HITL-prompt the user to promote any newly surfaced positioning defaults into the registry so/atomicspec.specifyand/atomicspec.plancan inherit them.
If the registry file is absent, warn and proceed without defaults (graceful degradation).
Phase 1: Setup & User Research Check
-
Parse the script output to get FEATURE_DIR and other paths.
-
Create the competitive analysis directory structure:
FEATURE_DIR/competitive-analysis/ ├── summary.md # Main reference document (created at end) └── competitors/ # Individual competitor analyses -
Ask user about existing research:
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 📊 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS - Setup ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ Before I begin researching competitors, do you have any existing competitive research, market analysis, or internal documents to share? If yes: - Create a folder: competitive-analysis/user-research/ - Add your files there (PDFs, docs, notes, screenshots, etc.) - Let me know when ready If no: - Reply "proceed" and I'll research from scratch **Why this matters**: Your existing research saves time and may contain insights not available publicly (sales calls, demos, etc.) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 373 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A c5a8e7d24154
analyze-competitors is a command published in the GitHub repository Chappygo-OS/Atomic-Spec (10 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 2,677 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
constitution
根据交互输入或已提供原则创建或更新项目章程，并确保相关模板保持同步。.
ijfw-audit
Run the IJFW audit gate for the current workflow phase. Usage: /ijfw-audit [phase name].
ijfw-execute
Jump directly to the IJFW workflow Execute phase (Deep D4 / Quick Q3). Usage: /ijfw-execute [task or phase name].
ijfw-metrics
Show IJFW token / cost / session metrics over a time window. Reads .ijfw/metrics/sessions.jsonl via the ijfwmetrics MCP tool.
core-review
Review code changes against SpecOps project-specific patterns. Catches recurring failure modes from real PRs — tool abstraction violations, generated file drift, cross-platform gaps, variable inconsistencies, and more. Complements full-review-gate (generic quality) and pr-fix (applying bot comments).
resolve-conflicts
Resolve merge conflicts on a GitHub PR by merging the base branch into the PR branch in an isolated git worktree, with JSON/markdown-aware conflict resolution.