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/J-Pster/Psters_AI_WorkflowWrote 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/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/pwf-checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/pwf-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/pwf-checklist/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/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/pwf-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/pwf-checklist.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 | $0.00031 | $0.00563 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00282 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00113 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
pwf-checklist scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Generate Requirement Quality Checklists
Checklists here are "unit tests for requirements writing", not QA test cases for implementation behavior.
Input
<checklist_input> #$ARGUMENTS </checklist_input>
If empty, ask: "Which plan should I generate checklists for? (e.g. docs/plans/20260312-feature-plan.md)"
Step 1: Resolve target and scope
- Resolve target plan (
docs/plans/*.md) from input. - Parse requested domains from input; default domains:
apiuxsecuritydataobservability
- Read target plan and any relevant docs:
docs/modules/*,docs/features/*,docs/lambdas/*as applicable.
Step 2: Generate checklist items by quality dimension
For each domain, write checks that evaluate requirements quality:
- Completeness
- Clarity
- Consistency
- Measurability
- Scenario coverage
- Edge-case coverage
- Dependencies and assumptions
Prohibited checklist style
- Do NOT write implementation tests like "verify endpoint returns 200".
- Do NOT reference runtime clicks/assertions.
Required checklist style
- Ask whether requirements are clearly and fully specified.
- Use markers such as
[Completeness],[Clarity],[Consistency],[Coverage],[Edge Case],[Gap].
Step 3: Write checklist files
Create folder:
docs/plans/<plan-slug>/checklists/
Create one file per domain:
api.md,ux.md,security.md,data.md,observability.md
Item format:
- [ ] CHK001 Are error response requirements specified for all API failure classes? [Completeness]
If a checklist file already exists, append new items and continue CHK numbering.
Output
Report:
- checklist directory path,
- files created/updated,
- total items per domain,
- top requirement gaps identified.
Next Recommended Commands
/pwf-analyze <same plan path>to detect coverage and consistency gaps/pwf-clarify <same plan path>if major ambiguities remain/pwf-work-plan <same plan path> Phase Nafter checklist gaps are addressed
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 · 92 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 3433b2c8d0f5
pwf-checklist is a command published in the GitHub repository J-Pster/Psters_AI_Workflow (289 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 563 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
improve
Apply systematic improvements to code quality, performance, and maintainability.
spec-review
A command for reviewing an OpenSpec proposal with two separate AI models. OpenSpec is a way to describe planned software changes before implementation.
resolve-pr
Resolve PR review feedback — fetch unresolved threads, triage, dispatch resolver agents, reply + resolve via GraphQL.
impl-review
John Carmack-level implementation review via RepoPrompt or Codex.
spec-completion-review
Spec completion review - verify implementation matches spec.
code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements - dispatches superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to review implementation against plan or requirements before proceeding.