Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to gui-wf/purelymail-mcp-server. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gui-wf/purelymail-mcp-server/master/.claude/commands/check-license.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gui-wf/purelymail-mcp-serverWrote 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/gui-wf/purelymail-mcp-server/check-license)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/gui-wf/purelymail-mcp-server/check-license"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gui-wf/purelymail-mcp-server/check-license/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/gui-wf/purelymail-mcp-server/check-license"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gui-wf/purelymail-mcp-server/check-license.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 | $0.00012 | $0.00564 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00282 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00113 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
check-license 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 — 60 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Check the license compatibility for package $1 ${2:+version $2}.
License Checking Workflow
First, run the license check command:
npm view $1${2:+@$2} license
Then analyze the result using this decision tree:
✅ COMPATIBLE LICENSES
If the license is one of: MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD-2-Clause, BSD-3-Clause, ISC, 0BSD
Action: Proceed with the update
- Use
/update-license-docscommand to update docs/package-licenses.md - If this is a license change from the previous version, note it in the "Notes" column
- Continue with package installation/update
- Confirm compatibility has been verified
🚨 INCOMPATIBLE LICENSES
If the license is one of: GPL, GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, AGPL, AGPL-3.0, LGPL, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0
Action: Cannot use this package version
- Recommend: Keep the current version (check current version in package.json)
- Alternative: Search for alternatives with:
npm search <package-functionality-keywords> - Last resort: Consider if our project license should be changed to accommodate this dependency
- Document the incompatibility issue for future reference
⚠️ REQUIRES MANUAL REVIEW
If the license contains: "NonCommercial", "NC", "Commercial", proprietary terms
Action: Manual review needed
- Check if the license restrictions overlap with our non-commercial license (potentially redundant)
- Verify if the license allows our intended use case (internal productivity, open source contributions)
- Flag for decision: proceed, find alternatives, or contact package maintainer
❓ UNKNOWN/UNDEFINED LICENSE
If npm returns: undefined, empty, or unrecognized license
Action: Investigation required
- Check the package's GitHub repository for LICENSE file
- Look in package.json for license field
- Check README.md for license information
- If still unclear, consider this package high-risk and find alternatives
Output Format
Always provide a clear summary:
- License found: [license name]
- Compatibility: ✅ Compatible / 🚨 Incompatible / ⚠️ Needs Review / ❓ Unknown
- Recommended action: [specific next steps]
- Alternative packages: [if applicable]
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 · 60 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A a34c86aa06f1
check-license is a command published in the GitHub repository gui-wf/purelymail-mcp-server (8 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 564 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
deps-audit
Audit project dependencies for vulnerabilities, outdated packages, license conflicts, and supply chain risks — then provide actionable remediation strategies.
review-epo-claims
Analyze patent claims for EPO Art. 84 EPC compliance - clarity, conciseness, support by description.
voice-compliance
Voice/telephony compliance check — invokes voice-ai-reviewer to produce TM-voice-{slug}.md with TCPA, STIR/SHAKEN, state recording-consent, EU AI Act Art. 50, and synth-voice deepfake-law gaps.
review-policy
Review a policy document for structure, coverage, and language quality.
at-dsgvo
You are helping an enterprise architect generate an Austrian Data Protection Assessment — the Austrian-specific GDPR layer applied by the Datenschutzbehörde (DSB) under the Datenschutzgesetz (DSG 2018, BGBl. I Nr. 165/1999 as amended). Run this after /arckit:eu-rgpd to add Austrian obligations that go beyond the EU…
au-pspf
You are an enterprise architect generating a Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) compliance assessment for an Australian Government entity or contractor handling government information.