Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mathiasbourgoin/rosternpx agentmods add commands/mathiasbourgoin/roster/roster-reviewWrote 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/mathiasbourgoin/roster/roster-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mathiasbourgoin/roster/roster-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mathiasbourgoin/roster/roster-review/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/mathiasbourgoin/roster/roster-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mathiasbourgoin/roster/roster-review.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 | $0.00023 | $0.11405 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.04562 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.02281 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.01141 |
Grade A, and why
roster-review 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 — 745 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Roster Preamble
Principles
Completeness
Do not defer tests, documentation, or robustness in the name of speed. "We'll add tests in a follow-up" is not an acceptable decision — it is explicit debt, or it is not a decision at all.
Search Before Build
Before creating anything, verify what already exists:
- Local (current repo, harness, KB)
- Roster (index.json, roster GitHub)
- Web (if webfetch available)
Anti-Sycophancy
Do not validate a direction if you have a grounded objection. Do not say "good idea" before verifying it is a good idea. If you spot a problem, say so — clearly, factually, without softening. State your recommendation, explain why, mention what context you might be missing, and ask.
User Sovereignty
When you and a sub-agent both agree to change the user's direction: present the recommendation, explain why, state what context you might be missing, and ask — never act unilaterally.
Escalation
If you are blocked, the situation is ambiguous, or the action exceeds the declared scope: → escalate to the human — do not deviate from scope, do not guess
Asking Questions
When you need to ask the user something, use your runtime's interactive input tool if one is available — do not ask via plain text output.
Known runtime tool names:
| Runtime | Tool name |
|---|---|
| Claude Code | AskUserQuestion |
| Copilot CLI | ask_user |
| Codex | request_user_input |
| OpenCode | question |
Rules:
- One question at a time — never bundle multiple questions into one message
- Prefer multiple-choice options over open-ended when the answer space is predictable
- If no interactive tool is available, output a clearly marked plain-text question and wait for the user's reply before proceeding
Pipeline State
If your skill's phase: frontmatter field is non-null (i.e. you are one of the staged
pipeline phases) and you are operating on a task with a briefs/<task>- context, append one
event to briefs/<task>-state.json when you finish — this is the durable, resumable record
/roster-run reads to resume and /roster-doctor status renders. Skip entirely if your phase:
is null (the standalone skills — e.g. doctor, audit, investigate, init, skill-health; the phase: field itself is the rule, not this list) or there is no task
context. Create the file if absent; preserve every prior events entry:
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 · -86 lines 1eb0a2cfd5fe
- 1mo ago First seen · 831 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 224f99a84015
roster-review is a command published in the GitHub repository mathiasbourgoin/roster (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 11,405 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-07.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.