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/eladariel/pseudo-code-prompting-plugin/validategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/EladAriel/pseudo-code-prompting-pluginWhat 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 | $0.00032 | $0.01100 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00550 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00220 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
Validate Pseudo-Code 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 yesterday.
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 — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Validate Pseudo-Code
This command validates pseudo-code across 6 critical dimensions:
- Security - Auth specified? Rate limiting? Input validation? Injection risks?
- Completeness - All required parameters present? Data flows defined?
- Error Handling - Every error scenario covered with correct status codes?
- Data Handling - Where does data come from? How is it validated? Storage?
- Performance - Scalable? Timeouts specified? Caching strategy?
- Edge Cases - Concurrent requests? Failure modes? Recovery?
Each dimension returns severity levels:
- ✗ CRITICAL - Must fix before implementation (security vulnerabilities, missing auth)
- ⚠ HIGH - Should fix (incomplete error handling, missing rate limiting)
- 📋 MEDIUM - Nice to have (optimization suggestions)
Usage
Simply say:
Validate my pseudocode: implement_oauth_authentication( providers=["google", "github"], token_type="jwt", ... )
Output Example
PSEUDO-CODE VALIDATION REPORT
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✓ PASSED CHECKS
✓ Security requirements specified (auth, PKCE, secure cookies)
✓ Error codes defined for all scenarios
✓ Rate limiting configured
✓ Timeout specified (5s)
✓ Retry logic with backoff
✓ Logging enabled
✗ CRITICAL ISSUES (Must Fix)
None
⚠ HIGH WARNINGS (Should Fix)
⚠ Token refresh concurrency not explicitly handled
→ Consider adding mutex or similar mechanism
📋 MEDIUM (Nice to Have)
✓ PKCE enabled—good!
→ Consider adding token rotation strategy for extra security
→ Consider logging failed OAuth provider attempts for analytics
EDGE CASES TO CONSIDER
⚠ What happens if user logs in from multiple devices simultaneously?
⚠ How do you handle provider API downtime during login?
⚠ Token expiration during long-running user action?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
OVERALL STATUS: READY
Recommendation: Ready for implementation. Address HIGH warnings before going to production.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 155 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 04cc78d79b2a
Validate Pseudo-Code is a command published in the GitHub repository EladAriel/pseudo-code-prompting-plugin (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,100 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
constitution
Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs.