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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cosmix/loomWrote 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/cosmix/loom/address)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/cosmix/loom/address"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cosmix/loom/address/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/cosmix/loom/address"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cosmix/loom/address.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00008 | $0.00468 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00187 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00094 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00047 |
Grade A, and why
address 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 1mo 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
read the review of your plan. It is at codex-<basename of $1> in the SAME directory as the plan (for example, when $1 is doc/plans/PLAN-foo.md the review is doc/plans/codex-PLAN-foo.md). Read $1 (the plan file) alongside it.
⚠️ IF THAT REVIEW FILE DOES NOT EXIST, STOP. It means the reviewer failed to produce one. Reply saying exactly that and change NOTHING — not the plan, not planning-omissions.md. Do NOT substitute a review of your own: this command's only job is to fold in someone else's findings, and an unreviewed edit pass on the plan is worse than no pass at all.
Work through each point in the review. Validate each point against the ACTUAL code and the sibling plans BEFORE accepting it — reviews are sometimes written against a stale draft (line references drift; a point may already be folded in) and are sometimes wrong. If a point is valid, fix the plan to address it. If a point is not valid or already addressed, explain why in your reply — not in the plan.
When an accepted fix touches a contract another plan provides or consumes (symbol names, signatures, file ownership, seams), fold the fix in AND state the required sibling-plan amendment explicitly in the plan as a blocking note — never silently diverge from a sibling.
After folding all fixes, run two closing sweeps: (1) self-consistency — rg each changed claim across the whole plan file and reconcile prose ⇄ YAML (a half-applied correction is worse than none); (2) coverage — every capability the updated prose promises must appear in a stage's artifacts:/wiring:/acceptance; a fix that lands only in prose is invisible to loom's gates.
⚠️ THE PLAN MUST STAY SELF-CONTAINED: fold every accepted fix directly into the plan file, because the executor reads only the plan. Do not move required detail into external notes.
Record any omissions, mistakes, or bad assumptions this review surfaced about your original plan in planning-omissions.md at the root of the repo. If the file is still there, append to it.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 19 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A 8fa95f6c6614
address is a command published in the GitHub repository cosmix/loom (62 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 468 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
devkit.github.review-pr
Provides comprehensive GitHub pull request review with code quality, security, and best practices analysis. Use when reviewing a PR before merging.
sdd-implement
Execute a task list in dependency order, tests before implementation for each task, halting on any non-parallel failure instead of pressing ahead.
analyst-init
Before executing this command, CONFIRM these files exist and are readable.
dev-implement
Before executing this command, CONFIRM these files exist and are readable.
speckit.git.remote
Detect Git remote URL for GitHub integration.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.