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/davistroy/claude-marketplaceWrote 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/davistroy/claude-marketplace/assess-document.eval)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/assess-document.eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/assess-document.eval/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/davistroy/claude-marketplace/assess-document.eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/assess-document.eval.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01251 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00626 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00250 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00125 |
Grade A, and why
assess-document.eval 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 9d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 152 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Eval: /assess-document
Purpose
Reads a document and produces a scored quality assessment report across six dimensions (completeness, clarity, consistency, specificity, structure, feasibility). Good output is a saved markdown or JSON file with dimensional scores, categorized issues (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION), and actionable recommendations.
Fixtures
| Fixture | Purpose |
|---|---|
docs/sample-prd.md |
Well-formed PRD; expect the higher of the two scores, few critical issues |
docs/draft-prd.md |
Incomplete PRD; expect the lower of the two scores, multiple critical issues |
Scoring is asserted relatively, never as an absolute band. A score is a model judgment, so an absolute floor/ceiling re-baselines with every model change and turns a calibration shift into a red build. What must hold across models is the ordering — the well-formed document scores materially higher than the draft, and the draft's weakest dimension is the one the fixture actually degrades. Run both fixtures in the same session so the comparison is apples-to-apples.
Test Scenarios
S1: Happy path — well-formed document
Invocation: /assess-document fixtures/docs/sample-prd.md
Must:
- Creates
reports/assessment-sample-prd-*.md(timestamp-named file) - Report contains a score table with all 6 dimensions
- Overall score is materially higher than the score this same session gives
draft-prd.md(S2) — at least a full point apart - At least 2 issues identified (even a good doc has improvements)
- Executive summary section is present
- "Saved to" path is reported to user in final summary
Should:
- Identifies that Section 8 "Open Questions" states "None — all resolved" as a strength
- Flags at least one SUGGESTION-level issue
- Issue list includes location references (section names or line refs)
Must NOT:
- Modify
fixtures/docs/sample-prd.md - Create output outside
reports/directory - Score overall below 3.0 for this well-formed document
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 152 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 75fba3ba03d7
assess-document.eval is a command published in the GitHub repository davistroy/claude-marketplace (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,251 tokens. 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
brand-generate
Generate an on-brand document from a saved Brand Profile.
cti-report
Render case deliverables — relationship graph (PNG/SVG/Mermaid) and a polished PDF/DOCX assessment. Usage: /cti-report [--graph|--pdf].
prose-review-docs
Reviews markdown documentation files or directories against the active prose style rules — the plugin's vendor-neutral baseline plus your organization's overlay when one is configured. Accepts a file path or directory (recursive). Runs prose-style-checker and optionally Vale. Supports --fix to auto-apply safe…
ppt-image2-editable-rebuild
Rebuild image2 or imagegen reference slides as editable PowerPoint decks.
render-figures
Compile all .tex and .typ figure files in a directory.
harness-onboarding
Generate a human-readable onboarding document from HARNESS.md, AGENTS.md, and REFLECTIONLOG.md — a friendly guide for new team members.