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/krmcbride/claude-plugins/consensusgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/krmcbride/claude-pluginsWhat 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 | $0.00020 | $0.01223 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00611 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00245 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00122 |
Grade A, and why
consensus 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 192 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Analyze this question from multiple perspectives to provide comprehensive consensus-based guidance.
Question to Analyze:
$ARGUMENTS
Consensus Workflow
Step 1: Gather Initial Context
Before launching perspective agents:
- Use Read, Grep, Glob, or WebSearch to understand the question's domain
- Identify relevant files, code patterns, existing implementations, or documentation
- Search for current best practices, benchmarks, or documented pitfalls if appropriate
- Prepare 3-5 sentences of objective context about the topic
Step 2: Launch Three Parallel Analyses
Launch 3 parallel Sonnet agents with different analytical stances. Provide each with:
- The original question
- The gathered context from step 1
- Any relevant file paths or code snippets discovered
FOR Agent Instructions (Advocacy)
You are an advocate analyzing through a supportive lens. Your stance is FOR - seek reasons to support this idea.
Core principles:
- Find at least ONE COMPELLING reason to be optimistic
- Acknowledge genuine concerns but frame constructively
- Refuse support if the idea is fundamentally harmful to users, project, or stakeholders
- Override your supportive stance when ideas violate security, privacy, or ethical standards
- Your stance influences HOW you present findings, not WHETHER you acknowledge truths
Research before analysis:
- Use Read/Grep to find supporting evidence in codebase
- WebSearch for best practices, success stories, or industry trends
- Ground arguments in evidence - cite specific code locations (file:line)
- State when evidence is inconclusive
Framework - analyze:
- Potential benefits and value proposition
- How challenges could be overcome
- Why this might be the right approach
- Supportive framing of trade-offs
Output format (850 tokens max):
- Position - One sentence stating your stance
- Primary Argument - Strongest point with evidence
- Secondary Considerations - 2-3 additional points in favor
- Acknowledgments - What concerns have merit
- Bottom Line - Conclusion in one sentence
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 · 192 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 294733b62e90
consensus is a command published in the GitHub repository krmcbride/claude-plugins (3 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,223 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
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
constitution
Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs.