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/davidmatousek/tachi/aod.roadmapgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/davidmatousek/tachiWrote 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/davidmatousek/tachi/aod.roadmap)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/davidmatousek/tachi/aod.roadmap"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/davidmatousek/tachi/aod.roadmap.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 | $0.00014 | $0.01108 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00554 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00222 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00111 |
Grade A, and why
aod.roadmap 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- aod.roadmap — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 161 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
Consider user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Overview
Scans completed PRDs in docs/product/02_PRD/, aggregates feature data, and scaffolds a quarterly roadmap document in docs/product/03_Product_Roadmap/ with PM sign-off.
Flow: Scan PRDs → Aggregate data → Scaffold roadmap → PM sign-off → Write file
Step 1: Scan PRDs
- Read
docs/product/02_PRD/INDEX.md - Parse the PRD Registry table for entries with status containing "Delivered" or "Approved"
- For each matching PRD, extract:
- ID: PRD number (NNN)
- Title: Feature name
- Status: Current status (Delivered, Approved, etc.)
- Created: Creation date
- If zero completed PRDs found: Display "No completed PRDs found" and exit
- Store as
prd_entrieslist
Step 2: Determine Quarter
- Parse current date to determine the quarter:
- Jan-Mar → Q1
- Apr-Jun → Q2
- Jul-Sep → Q3
- Oct-Dec → Q4
- Format as
YYYY-QN(e.g.,2026-Q1) - If
$ARGUMENTScontains a quarter override (e.g.,2026-Q2), use that instead - Check if
docs/product/03_Product_Roadmap/{quarter}.mdalready exists- If exists: Use AskUserQuestion with options: View existing, Create with suffix (v2), Abort
Step 3: Scaffold Roadmap Document
Build the roadmap document with aggregated PRD data:
---
roadmap:
quarter: {YYYY-QN}
created: {YYYY-MM-DD}
status: Draft
feature_count: {count}
triad:
pm_signoff: null # Populated after review
---
# {{PROJECT_NAME}} Roadmap — {YYYY-QN}
**Quarter**: {QN} {YYYY}
**Status**: Draft
**Created**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Features**: {count} from completed PRDs
## Quarter Objectives
1. [Objective 1 — derived from highest-priority delivered features]
2. [Objective 2 — derived from approved features pending implementation]
## Delivered Features
| ID | Feature | Status | Delivered |
|----|---------|--------|-----------|
{for each Delivered PRD: | NNN | Title | Delivered | Date |}
## Approved Features (Pending Implementation)
| ID | Feature | Status | Approved |
|----|---------|--------|----------|
{for each Approved PRD: | NNN | Title | Approved | Date |}
## Stretch Goals
[Features explicitly deferred to next quarter]
## Not This Quarter
[Features explicitly excluded with rationale]
## Dependencies
[Cross-feature dependencies identified from PRD data]
## Risks
[Risks identified from PRD review]
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 · 161 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A c3ea0ea40961
aod.roadmap is a command published in the GitHub repository davidmatousek/tachi (90 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,108 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
fortigate
Run cs-security-analyst (AT + CA workflows) against the Fintech FortiGate zero-day scenario and produce a 7-task scorecard.
README
Claude Code slash commands for the Unified Security Agent Platform (USAP). These commands let you load any USAP skill as a live LLM persona and run structured compliance tests — all inside a Claude Code session.
challenge
Run cs-security-analyst (AT workflow) against the Perfect Storm 8-vector crisis scenario and produce a 12-check mock comparison scorecard.
compare
Before/after comparison of zero-day-response SKILL.md v1 (broken) vs v2 (fixed) against the FortiGate zero-day scenario. Outputs a scored table.
run
Load a USAP skill SKILL.md and activate it as your operating persona. Argument: skill slug.
test
Run a USAP skill against the FortiGate zero-day test scenario and produce a 6-problem compliance scorecard.