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/evidence-checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/evidence-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/evidence-checklist/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/evidence-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/evidence-checklist.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 | $0.00009 | $0.01250 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00625 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00250 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00125 |
Grade A, and why
evidence-checklist 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 12d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to evidence-checklist — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/grc:evidence-checklist
Generate an evidence preparation checklist for upcoming audits or assessments.
Usage
/grc:evidence-checklist [framework] [controls] [audit-type?]
Arguments
- framework: The compliance framework. Accepts:
nist,fedramp,fisma,cmmc,soc2,iso27001,pci,hipaa,cis,cobit,ccm - controls: Comma-separated control IDs (e.g.,
ac-2,ia-2,sc-7) or a control family (e.g.,ac,ia,au) - audit-type (optional): Type of audit —
3pao,annual,soc2,iso,pci,internal. Adjusts evidence focus.
Examples
/grc:evidence-checklist fedramp ac-2,ia-2
/grc:evidence-checklist fedramp ac
/grc:evidence-checklist soc2 CC6.1,CC6.2,CC6.3
/grc:evidence-checklist fedramp ia 3pao
/grc:evidence-checklist pci 8.3,8.4 pci
/grc:evidence-checklist nist cp annual
Behavior
When invoked:
-
This is a pure reference command — it generates checklists from framework knowledge and does NOT require user content. No redaction reminder is needed.
-
Read the OSCAL family JSON first for authoritative assessment procedures (use the Read tool — do NOT use Bash, Python, or jq to extract data):
- For
nist: readskills/grc-knowledge/oscal/nist-800-53-rev5/{family}.json - For
fedramp: readskills/grc-knowledge/oscal/fedramp-moderate-rev5/{family}.json - Extract assessment methods from
.controls[].parts[] | select(.name == "assessment-method"):- EXAMINE method → use
.parts[] | select(.name == "assessment-objects") | .proseas the primary source for "Documents to prepare" and "Technical evidence" - INTERVIEW method → use
.parts[].proseas the primary source for "Interview subjects" - TEST method → use
.parts[].proseto identify processes and mechanisms that need demonstrable evidence
- EXAMINE method → use
- ID normalization:
AC-2→ac-2,AC-2(1)→ac-2.1
- For
-
Read additional reference files:
- Framework file from
skills/grc-knowledge/frameworks/ - Audit file from
skills/grc-knowledge/audits/(if audit-type specified) - Narrative quality criteria from
skills/grc-knowledge/audits/narrative-quality-criteria.md(for evidence expectations)
- Framework file from
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 123 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 4cdb9bd9aa80
evidence-checklist is a command published in the GitHub repository nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc (5 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 1,250 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to evidence-checklist, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.