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/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grcWrote 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/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/3pao-dryrun)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/3pao-dryrun"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/3pao-dryrun/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/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/3pao-dryrun"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/3pao-dryrun.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 | $0.00043 | $0.00560 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00280 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00112 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
3pao-dryrun 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 11d 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.
What it actually says
3PAO Dry Run Command
Purpose
Simulate what a Third-Party Assessment Organization (3PAO) would find when assessing a control. Be adversarial but fair — the value is finding gaps before the real assessor does.
Process
- Read the assessment objectives from the Snapshot Matrix
4_Test Case Proceduressheet - Read ALL evidence in the control folder + relevant SOC 2 cross-references
- Read the SSP narrative if one exists in
./output/narratives/ - Read the relevant policy template from
sp-package/3_Policies/ - Read the relevant procedure template from
sp-package/4_Procedures/ - For each assessment objective:
- State the objective
- Identify the assessment method (Examine/Interview/Test)
- Review evidence against the objective
- Determine result: SATISFIED / OTHER THAN SATISFIED
- If OTS, assign risk rating and write finding
- Check evidence for: Relevance, Currency (<1 year), Completeness, Specificity, Consistency, Parameter alignment
- Generate interview questions a 3PAO would ask
- Generate POA&M entries for any findings
Output Format
## 3PAO Assessment: <Control-ID> — <Control Name>
**Assessment Result**: SATISFIED / OTHER THAN SATISFIED
**Risk Rating**: High / Moderate / Low (if OTS)
**Methods Used**: Examine, Interview, Test
### Assessment Objectives
#### <Objective ID>: <Objective Text>
- **Method**: Examine
- **Evidence Reviewed**: `<path>`
- **Result**: OTHER THAN SATISFIED
- **Finding**: [description]
- **Risk**: Low
- **Recommendation**: [fix]
### Evidence Inventory
| Artifact | Path | Covers | Current? | Sufficient? |
|----------|------|--------|----------|-------------|
### Interview Questions
1. [question for system admin]
2. [question for ISSO]
### Interview Readiness Checklist
- [ ] [item]
### POA&M Entries (if OTS)
[generated entries]
Write output to ./output/3pao-dryrun/<control-id>.md
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 65 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 6b9c95a1332f
3pao-dryrun is a command published in the GitHub repository nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc (5 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 560 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
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.
review-policy
Review a policy document for structure, coverage, and language quality.
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.