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/mlunato47/claude-grc-pluginWrote 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/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/boundary-guidance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/boundary-guidance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/boundary-guidance/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/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/boundary-guidance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/boundary-guidance.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 | $0.00004 | $0.01143 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00571 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00229 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
boundary-guidance 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 9d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- boundary-guidance — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 151 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/grc:boundary-guidance
Provide guidance on authorization boundary definition based on system architecture.
Usage
/grc:boundary-guidance [framework?] [service-model?]
The user can optionally describe their architecture for tailored guidance.
Arguments
- framework (optional):
fedramp,nist,fisma. Defaults tofedramp. - service-model (optional):
iaas,paas,saas. Helps tailor boundary patterns.
Examples
/grc:boundary-guidance fedramp saas
/grc:boundary-guidance fedramp iaas
/grc:boundary-guidance fedramp
/grc:boundary-guidance We have a SaaS app on AWS with RDS, ECS, S3, CloudFront, and a VPN connection to an agency
Behavior
When invoked:
-
Display the Data Sensitivity Notice if the user describes their specific architecture (see SKILL.md Data Handling section). If only a generic service model is specified, the notice is not needed.
-
Read the appropriate reference files:
skills/grc-knowledge/audits/boundary-guidance.mdfor boundary patterns, common mistakes, and diagram requirementsskills/grc-knowledge/audits/control-inheritance.mdfor inheritance context- Framework file if framework-specific requirements apply
-
If the user describes their architecture, provide tailored guidance:
a. Boundary Recommendation
- Which components should be inside the boundary
- Which components should be outside (with interconnection documentation)
- Gray areas that need a decision, with pros/cons of each option
b. Diagram Requirements
- What the authorization boundary diagram must show
- What the network architecture diagram must show
- What the data flow diagram must show
c. Interconnection Inventory
- External connections that cross the boundary
- What each interconnection needs (ISA, ports/protocols, security measures)
d. Common Mistakes for This Architecture
- Specific boundary mistakes relevant to the described architecture
- How the 3PAO is likely to challenge the boundary
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 151 lines · 4 tokens per session scan A 1413955f8d4e
boundary-guidance is a command published in the GitHub repository mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin (181 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 4 tokens to every session and 1,143 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-30.
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.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
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.