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/dfirs1car1o/sicario-specWrote 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/dfirs1car1o/sicario-spec/sicario.controls)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dfirs1car1o/sicario-spec/sicario.controls"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dfirs1car1o/sicario-spec/sicario.controls/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/dfirs1car1o/sicario-spec/sicario.controls"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dfirs1car1o/sicario-spec/sicario.controls.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 | $0.00198 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00099 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00040 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00020 |
Grade A, and why
sicario.controls 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 10d 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
/sicario.controls
Generate or update docs/compliance/control-applicability.md.
Map applicable work to domains without claiming certification:
- NIST SSDF
- OWASP ASVS
- OWASP SAMM
- CSA CCM v4.1
- SOX 404 / ICFR ITGC evidence areas
- SLSA
- OWASP LLM / Agentic AI risks
- NIST AI RMF
- ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (Annex A)
- NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 (control families)
- EU AI Act (high-risk obligations)
- GDPR / CPRA (privacy principles and duties)
- PCI DSS v4.0 (cardholder data environment)
- HIPAA Security Rule (ePHI safeguards)
- Cloud/IaC benchmark concepts where applicable
Use docs/compliance/control-maps/ for starter traceability and official
framework sources for authoritative control language.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 25 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A b4bbe2706433
sicario.controls is a command published in the GitHub repository dfirs1car1o/sicario-spec (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 198 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
tcop
Generate a Technology Code of Practice (TCoP) review document for a UK Government technology project.
comply
SAIL V2 compliance checklist — ISO/IEC 42001, EU AI Act, OWASP LLM/Agentic, DASF, AIUC-1. All five frameworks by default, or only those named.
tcop
Generate a Technology Code of Practice (TCoP) review document for a UK Government technology project.
monitor
AML transaction monitoring and suspicious activity reporting.
overlay-apply
Apply NIST 800-53 overlays (FedRAMP, DoD, Privacy, etc.) to existing baselines.
pillar-guidance
Deep dive guidance on DORA's 5 pillars and implementation requirements.