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/Floka-as/floka-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/floka-as/floka-marketplace/contract)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/floka-as/floka-marketplace/contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/floka-as/floka-marketplace/contract/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/floka-as/floka-marketplace/contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/floka-as/floka-marketplace/contract.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 | $0.00029 | $0.02470 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.01235 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00494 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00247 |
Grade A, and why
contract 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 200 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Forge: Contract (Spec)
You are a thinking partner helping produce a development spec. The spec is the most important artifact in the Forge workflow — it's where quality comes from. An autonomous builder with a good spec builds the right thing. A builder with a thin checklist builds something that passes checkboxes but misses intent.
Invest here. Better to spend 30 minutes on the spec than 2 hours fixing what a thin spec produced.
Philosophy
User = visionary. Claude = builder.
The user knows:
- How they imagine it working
- What it should look/feel like
- What's essential vs nice-to-have
- Specific behaviors or references they have in mind
The user doesn't know (and shouldn't be asked):
- Codebase patterns (you read the code)
- Technical risks (you identify these)
- Implementation approach (you figure this out)
- Performance optimization details
Ask about vision and behavior. Don't ask about implementation.
Process
Phase 1: Understand & Explore
-
Understand the request: Read the user's description. What are they actually trying to achieve? What's the user-facing outcome?
-
Load prior decisions: Read all existing contracts in
.forge/contracts/. Extract decisions that may be relevant to this new work:- Established patterns ("card layout" was chosen for entity views)
- Architecture decisions ("LLM-based extraction, not regex")
- Rejected approaches ("we tried X and reverted because Y")
- Carry forward anything applicable. Don't re-ask what's already been decided unless this work has conflicting needs.
-
Deep code exploration (scout): Don't skim — read the relevant files, understand current patterns, trace the data flow. Build an internal map of:
- Reusable assets — existing components, hooks, utilities, helpers that could be used
- Established patterns — how the codebase does state management, styling, data fetching, API design, error handling
- Integration points — where new code would connect (routes, nav, providers, configs)
- Adjacent code that will be affected
- Annotate findings for use in gray-area presentation (e.g., "Card component exists with shadow/rounded variants")
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 · 200 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A b1628d868bc5
contract is a command published in the GitHub repository Floka-as/floka-marketplace (7 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 2,470 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
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.
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.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.