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/review-ssp)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/review-ssp"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/review-ssp/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/review-ssp"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/review-ssp.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 | $0.00011 | $0.01485 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00743 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00297 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00148 |
Grade A, and why
review-ssp 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:
- review-ssp — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 163 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/grc:review-ssp
Validate SSP structure and completeness against FedRAMP template standards.
Usage
/grc:review-ssp [framework] [baseline?]
The user pastes their SSP table of contents, section headers, or section content after invoking the command.
Arguments
- framework: The compliance framework. Accepts:
fedramp,nist,fisma. Defaults tofedramp. - baseline (optional):
low,moderate,high. Defaults tomoderate.
Examples
/grc:review-ssp fedramp
/grc:review-ssp fedramp high
/grc:review-ssp nist moderate
/grc:review-ssp fedramp moderate
Behavior
When invoked:
-
Display the Data Sensitivity Notice at the top of every response (see SKILL.md Data Handling section).
-
Read the appropriate reference files:
skills/grc-knowledge/audits/document-section-requirements.mdfor SSP section requirements- Framework file from
skills/grc-knowledge/frameworks/for baseline-specific requirements skills/grc-knowledge/audits/narrative-quality-criteria.mdif reviewing narrative sections
-
Determine what the user provided:
- Table of contents / section headers: Validate against required SSP sections
- Specific section content: Review that section for completeness
- Full or partial SSP content: Assess both structure and content
-
For TOC / structural review, check against all required SSP sections:
a. Section Checklist For each required SSP section (per FedRAMP template):
- Present: Section exists in the TOC/headers
- Missing: Section not found — flag criticality level
b. Critical Sections Flag these as critical if missing — each would be a finding:
- System categorization (FIPS 199)
- System description and architecture
- Authorization boundary diagram
- Network architecture diagram
- Data flow diagrams
- Ports, protocols, and services table
- Control implementation narratives
- System interconnections
- Required appendices (CIS/CRM, contingency plan, IRP, CMP)
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 · 163 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 53cef33e1cad
review-ssp is a command published in the GitHub repository mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin (181 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 1,485 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
deps-audit
Audit project dependencies for vulnerabilities, outdated packages, license conflicts, and supply chain risks — then provide actionable remediation strategies.
review-epo-claims
Analyze patent claims for EPO Art. 84 EPC compliance - clarity, conciseness, support by description.
voice-compliance
Voice/telephony compliance check — invokes voice-ai-reviewer to produce TM-voice-{slug}.md with TCPA, STIR/SHAKEN, state recording-consent, EU AI Act Art. 50, and synth-voice deepfake-law gaps.
at-dsgvo
You are helping an enterprise architect generate an Austrian Data Protection Assessment — the Austrian-specific GDPR layer applied by the Datenschutzbehörde (DSB) under the Datenschutzgesetz (DSG 2018, BGBl. I Nr. 165/1999 as amended). Run this after /arckit:eu-rgpd to add Austrian obligations that go beyond the EU…
au-pspf
You are an enterprise architect generating a Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) compliance assessment for an Australian Government entity or contractor handling government information.
compliance-audit
Full regulatory compliance audit for GDPR, HIPAA, SOC2, PCI-DSS, ISO 27001, and other frameworks with gap analysis, remediation planning, and evidence collection.