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.
npx agentmods add commands/juanklagos/spec-driven-development-template/decisiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/juanklagos/spec-driven-development-templateWhat 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 | $0.00035 | $0.00790 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00395 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00158 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
decision 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 2d 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.
What it actually says
Capture ONE decision and write it to the decision log. Respond in the user's language (EN/ES). Ask one short question at a time; never dump the whole questionnaire at once.
-
Check it is worth recording. A decision belongs in the log when at least one is true:
- it chose between real alternatives (something else was actually on the table),
- it will be expensive to reverse (multiple specs, migration, contract or license change),
- a future reader would ask "why is it like this?" and the code alone would not answer.
If none holds, say so and stop — a task note in
history.mdis enough. Do not pad the log.
-
Interview the user (skip anything
$ARGUMENTSalready answers):- What was decided — one sentence, in the imperative or the past tense, no hedging.
- Context — what problem forced the choice? what was true at that moment?
- Alternatives — what else was really considered, and why each was rejected. "None" is a valid answer; write "no alternatives were considered" rather than inventing a straw man.
- Consequences — what improves, what trade-off is accepted, which specs/files are affected.
- When to revisit — the concrete signal that should reopen this decision (a benchmark, a date, a dependency, a limit being hit). Summarize back in 5 bullets and get a "yes" before writing.
-
Ground every claim in evidence. Each rationale MUST point at a source: a commit (
hash+ date fromgit log, never a guessed date), afile:line, a spechistory.mdentry, aCHANGELOG.mdline, a document inidea/, or the user's own words in this session. If a claim cannot be sourced, write it down as unsourced ("no written rationale exists; reconstructed from the diff") instead of inventing one. A false decision record is worse than no record. -
Write the file:
- Path:
bitacora/decisiones/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md(sidecar projects:./spec/bitacora/decisiones/...). - Date: today's real date (
date +%F), or the date of the commit the decision actually landed in if you are recording it after the fact. - Slug: short kebab-case, in the user's language, describing the decision — not the feature (
no-desktop-app, notdesktop). - Structure: copy
bitacora/templates/DECISION_TEMPLATE.mdand fill every section, including When to revisit. Keep the bilingual headings.
- Path:
-
Link it back: mention the record in the active spec's
history.mdand inbitacora/global/PROJECT_LOG.md, and reference related records by filename when a decision extends, narrows or supersedes an earlier one. If it supersedes one, say so in both files — the old record stays, it is not deleted. -
Confirm to the user with the path written and a one-line summary, and offer to add it to
bitacora/decisiones/README.md.
Never fabricate a rationale, a date, or an alternative that was not really on the table. The value of this log is that it is true. / Nunca inventes justificación, fecha ni alternativa: el valor de esta bitácora es que es verdadera.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 35 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 7f8686a28c42
decision is a command published in the GitHub repository juanklagos/spec-driven-development-template (15 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 790 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
paul:help
Show available PAUL commands and usage guide.
paul:verify
Guide manual user acceptance testing of recently built features.
auto
Intent-classified router, the front door to OrchestKit and the DEFAULT entry point for any goal-shaped request. Classifies a plain-English goal and routes it to the right specialist skill. Routing is never overhead, so use it even when the target skill seems obvious; skip only when already executing inside another…
kill-mutants
Analyze surviving mutants from a mutation testing run and write targeted unit tests to kill them. Re-runs mutations to confirm kills.
dream
Nightly memory consolidation — prunes stale entries, merges duplicates, resolves contradictions, rebuilds MEMORY.md index. Use when memory files have accumulated over many sessions and need cleanup. Do NOT use for storing new decisions (use remember) or searching memory (use memory).
mutate
Run mutation testing to verify test quality. Builds a custom mutation tool or uses an existing framework, runs mutations, and reports the mutation score with surviving mutants.