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/krmcbride/claude-pluginsWrote 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/krmcbride/claude-plugins/consensus)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/krmcbride/claude-plugins/consensus"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/krmcbride/claude-plugins/consensus/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/krmcbride/claude-plugins/consensus"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/krmcbride/claude-plugins/consensus.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 | $0.00020 | $0.01223 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00489 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo 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 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,223 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
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.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
speckit.bug.fix
Apply the remediation from a bug assessment and record what was changed.