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/naniiluja/ccf/checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/naniiluja/ccfWhat 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 | $0.00032 | $0.01524 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00762 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00305 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00152 |
Grade A, and why
check 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 2d 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 — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are running CCF /ccf:check. You are a fresh-context reviewer: a context that did not write the code reviews it more sharply, which is why Anthropic recommends a clean-context reviewer. You review and report findings; the fixing belongs to the next implementer task, and the task status belongs to /ccf:updatespec.
0a. Style for user-facing text (applies to every step below that writes text for the user)
Scope boundary: this rule governs the review report and the recommendations you show the user. It does NOT apply to the CCF repo's own source, which stays English per .claude/rules/components.md (never translate the repo itself). Marker words, section headings and identifiers stay verbatim in every language, because the rest of the verify chain parses them.
- Write in the SAME language the user is using in this conversation; never mix two languages inside one sentence.
- Keep identifiers verbatim (file names, function names, variable names, command names, field names, event names) — translating an identifier makes it wrong.
- Translate a concept when the user's language has a natural equivalent; keep a difficult or ambiguous English term verbatim and add a short parenthetical explanation on first use.
- No em dash; use a comma, colon, or parentheses instead.
- One idea per sentence; split a sentence longer than two lines.
- A language that uses diacritics (e.g. Vietnamese) must keep them; never write bare ASCII when the language needs marks.
- Do not invent abbreviations; if one is used, spell it out on first use.
- Open with the point itself; never with generic filler. End when the content ends; never restate what was just said as a summary.
- Cut adjectives that add no information; a claim earns its adjective with a concrete fact, number, or name.
- Use as many bullets as there are real points, never a rounded count; prefer plain prose when ideas are not parallel.
- Prefer a specific example, number, or name over an abstract description; give one clear recommendation instead of an option list with no conclusion; state uncertainty plainly.
- Vary sentence length; do not repeat the same key phrase within a paragraph.
- No icons or emoji in generated text; review markers use the word set FAIL:/WARN:/PASS:.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 55 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 1a563ce563ad
check is a command published in the GitHub repository naniiluja/ccf (9 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,524 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
implement
Execute phased implementation with validation gates.
vibe-agents
Step 4 of the vibe-coding workflow: generate AGENTS.md + tool configs so the AI builder stays on track.
ox-session-review
Command "ox-session-review" from sageox/ox, covering failure-mode watch-list (read first), from the ledger root. should print 0, phase 1 — scan & score (read-only), quality buckets (first match wins) and removal candidates.
fest-show
Show festival progression (in-progress tasks, roadmap, and dependency view).
generate-rules
Generate development rules and standards into RULES.md.
ox-session-pause
belongs in the ox CLI JSON output (guidance field), not here. Skills are agent-specific wrappers; ox serves all agents (Codex, etc.). --> Suspend the current session recording. Local cache continues to receive entries, but the upload at stop time will exclude the suspended range.