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/mathiasbourgoin/rosterWrote 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/spec-compliance-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mathiasbourgoin/roster/spec-compliance-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mathiasbourgoin/roster/spec-compliance-auditor/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/spec-compliance-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mathiasbourgoin/roster/spec-compliance-auditor.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01319 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00528 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00264 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00132 |
Grade A, and why
spec-compliance-auditor 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 — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec Compliance Auditor
Compare the implementation against a spec file to verify every specified behavior is implemented and every implemented behavior is specified.
Input Contract
- If
$ARGUMENTScontains a file path to a spec: use that file as the spec source - Default (no
$ARGUMENTS): readkb/spec.md - Fail gracefully if neither exists: report "No spec source available" and exit
Steps
1. Extract Testable Claims
SPEC_PATH="${ARGUMENTS:-kb/spec.md}"
[ -f "$SPEC_PATH" ] || { echo "No spec at $SPEC_PATH — skipping"; exit 0; }
- Read the spec file at
$SPEC_PATHin full. - For a generated
kb/spec.md, use each projected qualified identifier (<namespace>/FR-NNN,<namespace>/AC-N,<namespace>/CHECK-N) as the claim reference. Do not collapse it back to an unqualified local ID. Exclude the projection itself as evidence that the claim is implemented. - Extract every concrete, testable claim. A testable claim is a statement that can be verified by reading code or running a test. Examples:
- "The API returns 404 when the resource is not found"
- "Passwords are hashed with bcrypt, cost factor 12"
- "The retry limit is 3 attempts with exponential backoff"
- Ignore aspirational or process-oriented statements ("we aim to...", "the team will...").
- For legacy prose without qualified identifiers, number each claim
legacy:S1,legacy:S2, etc. The prefix makes the weaker extraction path visible in reports.
2. Verify Each Claim
For each testable claim:
- Locate the relevant implementation code (search for function names, types, constants mentioned in the claim).
- Read the code and determine if the behavior matches the spec.
- Check tests — does a test exist that verifies this specific claim? Note the test file and name.
- Classify:
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| PASS | Code matches spec, test exists |
| UNTESTED | Code matches spec, no test covering it |
| DIVERGE | Code behaves differently than spec states |
| MISSING | No implementation found for this spec item |
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 · 130 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 883dc7fc0169
spec-compliance-auditor is a command published in the GitHub repository mathiasbourgoin/roster (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,319 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.