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/dean0x/devflowWrote 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/dean0x/devflow/implement-evidence-asks)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dean0x/devflow/implement-evidence-asks"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dean0x/devflow/implement-evidence-asks/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/dean0x/devflow/implement-evidence-asks"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dean0x/devflow/implement-evidence-asks.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 | $0.01167 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00467 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00233 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00117 |
Grade A, and why
implement-evidence-asks 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 2d 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 — 36 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Implement: evidence asks
Read by /implement Phase 1 (D-CMD-REF-HAND). "The grammar below", "the exception grammar above" and "the record above" name sections of this file. Any other "above" means the Phase 1 text before the step that sent you here.
Ticket link ask
Ticket link, only when ISSUE_REQUIRED is true: when the capture above holds no ISSUE_PR_LINK (absent, or (none)), ask with AskUserQuestion before any Code spawn — "No tracker issue is linked to this task. Record a self-attested exception, or stop?" — offering exactly these two options:
- Record an exception — the user gives the reason as free text. Render it with the grammar below, as kind
ticket-link; when the rendered reason is empty, ask for it once more, and stop as below if it is empty again. - Stop — report
BLOCKED (no ticket link), name the branch setup-task created (TASK_ID) andBASE_BRANCHso it can be reused or removed, and give the remedy: create or link the tracker issue and re-run/implementwith its reference, or — for a team that does not want ticket links — commit.devflow/project.jsonas{"version":1,"evidence":"standard"}on the default branch; a machine with compliance enabled still resolvesrequiredwhatever that file says. Spawn nothing further.
Exception grammar
Render each evidence exception as one line under a ## Evidence Exceptions heading, in exactly this shape:
## Evidence Exceptions
- `<kind>` self-attested by @<login> at <utc>: <reason>
<kind>is one ofticket-linkortest-plan— a closed set; no other kind is ever rendered, and the section holds each kind at most once.@<login>is@followed by the output ofgh api user --jq .loginwhen that output matches^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9-]{0,38}$. On any other output, or a failed call, it is(login unavailable)instead, with no@.<utc>is the output ofdate -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ.<reason>is the user's own words, made inert: replace every character outside printable ASCII (newlines and tabs included) with a space, remove every<,>,`,[,],\,/,#,@,&and$, collapse runs of spaces, trim, keep the first 200 characters, and trim again. A reason that is empty after this is no reason.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 36 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A cdae264e90f9
implement-evidence-asks is a command published in the GitHub repository dean0x/devflow (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,167 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 2026-10-14.
Other commands, from other repositories
dashboard
Phase 3 monitoring — System health, execution insights, and velocity analytics.
run
Execute an approved PRD using feature branch workflow (v7.0). This command generates briefs, auto-reviews them, allows user iteration, and then orchestrates execution.
anchors
List what each requirement tag anchors to (read-only).
afe
Evaluate feature - code review or comparison (shortcut for feature-eval).
auto-task
Create an agent team for autonomous workflow: plan (Architect teammate + PM teammate) → develop (Developer teammate + Code-tester teammate + QA-tester teammate + Reviewer teammate) → report (no approval gate).
aitask-pr-import
Create an aitask from a pull request by analyzing PR data and generating a structured task with implementation plan.