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/gtmagents/gtm-agentsWrote 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/gtmagents/gtm-agents/define-events)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/gtmagents/gtm-agents/define-events"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gtmagents/gtm-agents/define-events/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/gtmagents/gtm-agents/define-events"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gtmagents/gtm-agents/define-events.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00703 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00351 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00141 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
define-events 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 — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Command: define-events
Inputs
- use_case – business question or KPI the events support.
- sources – data sources involved (product, web, CRM, MAP, billing).
- tools – instrumentation stack (CDP, product analytics, warehouse, dbt).
- constraints – optional legal/compliance requirements.
- timeline – optional delivery date.
GTM Agents Pattern & Plan Checklist
Mirrors GTM Agents orchestrator blueprint @puerto/plugins/orchestrator/README.md#112-325.
- Pattern selection: Instrumentation typically runs pipeline (requirements → catalog → governance → QA → change mgmt). If governance + QA can run parallel, log a diamond segment with merge gate in the plan header.
- Plan schema: Save
.claude/plans/plan-<timestamp>.jsoncapturing objective, data sources, task IDs, dependencies, context passing (schemas, privacy notes), error handling, and success metrics (coverage %, defect ceiling). - Tool hooks: Reference
docs/gtm-essentials.mdstack (Serena for repo diffs, Context7 for platform/legal docs, Sequential Thinking for review flows, Playwright for front-end event QA when applicable). - Guardrails: Default retry limit = 2 for QA failures; escalation ladder = Analytics Data Strategist → Data Engineering Lead → RevOps.
- Review: Run
docs/usage-guide.md#orchestration-best-practices-puerto-paritybefore execution to confirm agents, dependencies, deliverables.
Workflow
- Requirement Gathering – clarify KPIs, dimensions, and downstream consumers.
- Event Cataloging – list events, payloads, properties, IDs, sampling rate, ownership.
- Governance Mapping – document naming conventions, consent handling, retention policies.
- QA Plan – outline testing methods (unit tests, replay, observability dashboards).
- Change Management – define review/approval steps, rollout plan, and version control.
Outputs
- Instrumentation spec (event name, description, properties, source, owner, status).
- Tracking plan (CSV/JSON/YAML) aligned with CDP or analytics tool requirements.
- QA checklist + evidence plan (logs, dashboards, sample payloads).
- Plan JSON entry stored/updated in
.claude/plansfor audit trail.
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 · 49 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A fdbe2bc9fc84
define-events is a command published in the GitHub repository gtmagents/gtm-agents (398 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 703 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 2026-08-30.
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.