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/jonase47/ccprWrote 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/jonase47/ccpr/gate-p6-security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jonase47/ccpr/gate-p6-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jonase47/ccpr/gate-p6-security/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/jonase47/ccpr/gate-p6-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jonase47/ccpr/gate-p6-security.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01014 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00406 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
gate-p6-security 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/gate-p6-security – Security Approval Evaluation
Evaluates all security-relevant points of the Gate-P6 checklist and grants Security approval.
Argument: $ARGUMENTS = not applicable
Gate commands accept no arguments.
Prerequisites
docs/quality/QA.md(phase index) existsdocs/quality/AUDIT.md(sub-index) and its detail files (audit_auth.md,audit_config.md,audit_deps.md,audit_dsgvo.md,audit_sast.md)docs/quality/PENTEST.md(sub-index) and its detail files (pentest_recon.md,pentest_auth.md,pentest_authz.md,pentest_injection.md,pentest_logic.md)docs/architecture/SECURITY.md(P3 sub-index) as reference for the security architecturedocs/concept/DSGVO_INITIAL_ASSESSMENT.md(P1 detail file) as compliance benchmark
Agent
- Type: security-master
- Model: opus
Pre-Flight
If docs/.gate-preflight-p6.md exists and is less than 10 minutes old, read it as a starting point. Mechanical checks (file existence, sections) are already done – focus on content evaluation.
Context (Orchestrator prepares)
Read the phase and sub-indexes first, then load detail files only when their status row signals an open issue:
- From
docs/quality/QA.md: status, key decisions, open risks (entry point) - From
docs/quality/AUDIT.md(sub-index): row status of eachaudit_*.md - From
docs/quality/PENTEST.md(sub-index): row status of eachpentest_*.md - From
docs/architecture/SECURITY.md: P3 threat model summary (key decisions, open risks) - From
docs/concept/DSGVO_INITIAL_ASSESSMENT.md: DSGVO requirements (short list) - Detail files (
audit_dsgvo.md,pentest_authz.md, ...) only when a sub-index row isneeds-reworkor has an open Critical risk
Prompt Template
Goal: Security approval evaluation for Gate P6.
Security Reports: [inline summaries]
Output Format:
Checklist (max. 6 points): | # | Check Point | Status | Justification | Status: Met / Partial / Not Met
Security Approval:
- Approved / Conditional Approval / Not Approved
- Justification (2–3 sentences)
- Conditions (if conditional, as numbered list)
Constraints:
- Security evaluation ONLY, NO QA evaluation
- Evaluation based exclusively on available reports
- No approval if critical or high security findings are open
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 Changed 654729be73cd
- 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines 26224bb0a49a
- 1mo ago First seen · 79 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 591fdd11ee44
gate-p6-security is a command published in the GitHub repository jonase47/ccpr (1 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,014 tokens. 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
stats
Show real token usage, delegation rate, and actual savings for the current Hydra session (parses Claude Code session JSONL — no AI estimation).
map
View, rebuild, or query the codebase dependency map.
design-intent
Guided UI/visual development with structured exploration, architecture design, and quality review.
ralph
Ralph autonomous development loop with fresh context per iteration.
debug
Systematic debugging with automated investigation and 4-phase methodology. Default: inline evidence gathering and diagnosis. --deep: spawns systematic-debugger agent for full autonomous debugging. Use for errors, stack traces, test failures, or unexpected behavior.
double-check
Comprehensive verification with automated quality gates, confession gathering, and confidence-based issue filtering. Default: self-review with gates. --deep: multi-agent review via code-reviewer agent. Use before committing, after fixing bugs, or to validate feature completeness.