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.
npx agentmods add commands/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/score-maturitygit 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/score-maturity)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/score-maturity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin/score-maturity.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00012 | $0.01700 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00850 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00340 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
score-maturity 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 6d 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:
- score-maturity — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/grc:score-maturity
Score control implementation maturity on a 0–5 scale with actionable guidance to reach the next level.
Usage
/grc:score-maturity [framework] [family-or-control] [baseline?]
The user optionally provides implementation descriptions or narrative text. If no content is provided, the command asks structured questions.
Arguments
- framework: The compliance framework. Accepts:
nist,fedramp,fisma,cmmc,soc2,iso27001,pci,hipaa,cis,cobit - family-or-control: A control family (e.g.,
ac,ia) or specific control ID (e.g.,ac-2,ia-2) - baseline (optional):
low,moderate,high. Defaults tomoderatefor NIST/FedRAMP.
Examples
/grc:score-maturity fedramp ac-2
/grc:score-maturity fedramp ac moderate
/grc:score-maturity nist ia
/grc:score-maturity cmmc 3.5
/grc:score-maturity soc2 CC6
/grc:score-maturity cobit DSS02
Behavior
When invoked:
-
Display the Data Sensitivity Notice at the top of every response if the user provides content. If no content is provided and the command enters interactive/question mode, the notice is not needed.
-
Read the appropriate reference files:
skills/grc-knowledge/audits/narrative-quality-criteria.mdfor the 0–5 maturity scale- Framework file from
skills/grc-knowledge/frameworks/for control details
-
Determine mode based on user input:
Mode A: Content-based scoring (user provides narrative or implementation description)
- Score each control directly using the 0–5 maturity scale
- Apply the same criteria as
/grc:review-narrativebut focus on the score and "next level" guidance - For a family, score each control individually and compute an overall family score
Mode B: Question-based scoring (no content provided)
- Ask structured questions about the implementation for each control or the family
- Questions organized around the Five W's and maturity indicators:
For each control, ask about:
- Documentation: Is there a written narrative? How detailed?
- Implementation: Is the control technically implemented? Fully or partially?
- Automation: Is the control automated, manual, or hybrid?
- Repeatability: Is the process consistent and repeatable? Documented procedures?
- Measurement: Are there metrics? How is effectiveness tracked?
- Review: When was the last review? How often?
- Evidence: What evidence exists? Could you produce it for an auditor today?
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 173 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 9fc7ec6e69a7
score-maturity is a command published in the GitHub repository mlunato47/claude-grc-plugin (181 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 1,700 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
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.
app-store-audit
Run an enterprise pre submission compliance audit on an iOS or Android app against Apple App Store and Google Play rejection rules. Pass a project path or run from the project root.