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/christopher-buss/bedrock/analyzegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/christopher-buss/bedrockWhat 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 | $0.00010 | $0.00215 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00108 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00043 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00021 |
Grade A, and why
analyze 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 yesterday.
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
Analyze the current conversation context and identify things that have not yet been addressed. Look for:
- Incomplete implementations - Code that was started but not finished
- Unused variables/results - Values that were captured but never used
- Missing tests - Functionality without test coverage
- User requests - Things the user asked for that weren't fully completed
- TODO comments - Any TODOs mentioned in conversation
- Error handling gaps - Missing error cases or edge cases
- Documentation gaps - Undocumented APIs or features
- Consistency check - Look for inconsistent patterns, naming conventions, or structure across the codebase
Present findings as a prioritized list with:
- What the gap is
- Why it matters
- Suggested next action
If there are no gaps, confirm that everything discussed has been addressed.
Additional info: $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.
- yesterday First seen · 28 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A a3ab0569d21e
analyze is a command published in the GitHub repository christopher-buss/bedrock (13 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 215 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 2026-09-01.
Other commands, from other repositories
sicario.verify
Run deterministic verification.
create-plan
Important: ALL phases must use checkmarks for their tasks. Each checkmark should correspond to a single commit. The checkmark should be marked - [x] in the same commit that completes the task. Phase tasks should be prefixed with parent phase number and letters (a, b, c, etc.).
sicario.controls
Generate or update docs/compliance/control-applicability.md.
sicario.assess
Assess the repository against SicarioSpec guardrails.
sicario.init
Initialize SicarioSpec files in the current repository.
sicario.review
Review the active spec, plan, tasks, staged changes, or branch for security and governance gaps.