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/Kripu77/software-factoryWrote 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/kripu77/software-factory/bug)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kripu77/software-factory/bug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kripu77/software-factory/bug/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/kripu77/software-factory/bug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kripu77/software-factory/bug.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 | $0.00027 | $0.00235 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00094 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00047 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00023 |
Grade A, and why
bug 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.
What it actually says
Read lanes/bug.md and AGENTS.md. Ask Telemetry for evidence if the ticket has none. Web app bugs: /browser-use first, then /tdd. Use /mermaid when you write a PR.
At start, factory.sh mem read for this issue (or project if no issue). Write started only if that read shows no in-progress bug run: factory.sh mem write --lane bug --status started --harness <claude|cursor|codex|grok> --issue . At the end, factory.sh mem write --lane bug --status done|blocked|failed --harness <claude|cursor|codex|grok> --issue --summary "" --evidence --next-steps "". Missing memory: warn once and continue.
Need a GitHub issue. New branch off main. Open a PR. Print the URL. Do not merge.
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 First seen · 11 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 77f0800be685
bug is a command published in the GitHub repository Kripu77/software-factory (7 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 235 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
build
Implement the next ready task from .forge/tasks.yaml using TDD discipline.
tdd
Correction de Bug en Mode TDD/BDD.
fix
Correction automatisee des bugs identifies par la QA Recette.
hatch3r-bug-pipeline
Run a known-cause bug fix through a 3-phase test-first pipeline -- reproduce + root-cause, regression-test + fix together, then root-cause-depth review -- with full sub-agent delegation.
bugfix
TDD-driven bugfix workflow: tester writes failing test (RED) → developer fixes (GREEN) → developer refactors (REFACTOR) → reviewer validates. Accepts issue number, description, or both. Asks before pushing and creating a PR; --no-pr commits locally without asking.
fec-tdd
Use front-end TDD workflow to implement functions, fix bugs, or refactor logic: first write failing tests, then implement minimal code, and then refactor.