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/plangit 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 | $0.00018 | $0.00582 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00291 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00116 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
plan 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 104 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan: PRD-Informed Task Planning for TDD
Create structured implementation plan that bridges product thinking (PRD) with test-driven development.
Input
$ARGUMENTS
(If no input provided, check conversation context)
Input Processing
The input can be one of:
- GitHub Issue URL (e.g.,
https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123) - GitHub Issue Number (e.g.,
#123or123) - Feature Description (e.g., "Add user authentication")
- Empty - use conversation context
GitHub Issue Integration
If input looks like a GitHub issue:
Step 1: Extract Issue Number
- From URL: extract owner/repo/number
- From number: try to infer repo from git remote
- From branch name: check patterns like
issue-123,123-feature,feature/123
Step 2: Fetch Issue
Use gh CLI to fetch issue details: gh issue view <number>
Step 3: Use Issue as Discovery Input
- Title → Feature name
- Description → Problem statement and context
- Labels → Type/priority hints
- Comments → Additional requirements and discussion
- Linked issues → Dependencies
Extract from GitHub issue:
- Problem statement and context
- Acceptance criteria (if present)
- Technical notes (if present)
- Related issues/dependencies
Process
Discovery Phase
Understand the requirement by asking (use AskUserQuestion if needed):
Problem Statement
- What problem does this solve?
- Who experiences this problem?
- What's the current pain point?
Desired Outcome
- What should happen after this is built?
- How will users interact with it?
- What does success look like?
Scope & Constraints
- What's in scope vs. out of scope?
- Any technical constraints?
- Dependencies on other systems/features?
Context Check
- Search codebase for related features/modules
- Check for existing test files that might be relevant
Key Principles
From PRD World:
- Start with user problems, not solutions
- Define success criteria upfront
- Understand constraints and scope
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 · 104 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 702b22695197
plan is a command published in the GitHub repository christopher-buss/bedrock (13 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 582 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.