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/checklistgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Chappygo-OS/Atomic-SpecWhat 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 | $0.00013 | $0.03947 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.01973 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00789 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00395 |
Grade A, and why
checklist 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.
This is a copy
83% identical to checklist — 112 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 308 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Checklist Purpose: "Unit Tests for English"
CRITICAL CONCEPT: Checklists are UNIT TESTS FOR REQUIREMENTS WRITING - they validate the quality, clarity, and completeness of requirements in a given domain.
NOT for verification/testing:
- ❌ NOT "Verify the button clicks correctly"
- ❌ NOT "Test error handling works"
- ❌ NOT "Confirm the API returns 200"
- ❌ NOT checking if code/implementation matches the spec
FOR requirements quality validation:
- ✅ "Are visual hierarchy requirements defined for all card types?" (completeness)
- ✅ "Is 'prominent display' quantified with specific sizing/positioning?" (clarity)
- ✅ "Are hover state requirements consistent across all interactive elements?" (consistency)
- ✅ "Are accessibility requirements defined for keyboard navigation?" (coverage)
- ✅ "Does the spec define what happens when logo image fails to load?" (edge cases)
Metaphor: If your spec is code written in English, the checklist is its unit test suite. You're testing whether the requirements are well-written, complete, unambiguous, and ready for implementation - NOT whether the implementation works.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Registry Protocol (Constitution Directive 7)
Follow _registry-protocol.md:
- On entry: Read
specs/_defaults/registry.yaml. Focus on sections relevant to checklist authoring —governance.quality_gates,testing.*,conventions.*, and any project-wide acceptance-criteria standards the registry already encodes. - During: If the checklist surfaces a quality dimension or gate that should apply to every feature (e.g., "all API specs must quantify rate limits"), apply Scenario A/B/C from the protocol (re-use, add-to-registry via HITL, or deviate with documentation).
- On exit: If new project-wide gate types emerged from the checklist, HITL-prompt the user to add them to
governance.quality_gates.
If the registry file is absent, warn and proceed without defaults (graceful degradation).
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 · 308 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 095ac0b45c1b
checklist is a command published in the GitHub repository Chappygo-OS/Atomic-Spec (10 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 3,947 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to checklist, differing in 112 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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。.
cross-research
Two-phase multi-model research. Phase A fans codex+gemini in parallel (benchmarks + citations angles); Phase B synthesises via fresh Claude session. Usage: /cross-research [--with | list | compare].
ijfw-audit
Run the IJFW audit gate for the current workflow phase. Usage: /ijfw-audit [phase name].
memory-why
Show why a memory recall returned what it did -- BM25 vs vector vs hybrid provenance.
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.