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/EZotoff/ez-omo-configWrote 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/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/option-compare)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/option-compare"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/option-compare/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/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/option-compare"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/option-compare.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 | $0.00013 | $0.00226 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00090 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00045 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00023 |
Grade A, and why
option-compare 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 1mo 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
Run an option-comparison review. Input: the decision to make and the candidate options (or ask the operator to enumerate them first).
Stage 1 — DRAFT EACH: for each option, one oracle agent drafts the best honest case for that option — including its costs and failure modes — WITHOUT seeing the other options' drafts (independence is the point; brief each agent only on its own option and the shared context).
Stage 2 — JUDGE: a judge agent (different model family from the drafters if available) sees all drafts and ranks them with explicit criteria and weights, stating what evidence would change the ranking.
Stage 3 — ADVERSARIAL CHECK: one challenger agent attacks the judge's ranking — where is it pattern-matching rather than arguing?
Synthesize: ranking with confidence levels, the strongest argument for and against the top pick, and what evidence would flip the decision.
Boundary: analysis, not authorization — the ranking informs the operator's pick; nothing is selected or dispatched without them.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 16 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A da04e384324e
option-compare is a command published in the GitHub repository EZotoff/ez-omo-config (6 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 226 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-06.
Other commands, from other repositories
compact
Prepare OMC context for a manual Claude Code /compact handoff.
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.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
speckit.bug.fix
Apply the remediation from a bug assessment and record what was changed.