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/map-controls)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/map-controls"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/map-controls.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00736 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00368 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00147 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
map-controls 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 7d 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 — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/grc:map-controls
Map controls between compliance frameworks using NIST 800-53 as the universal hub.
Usage
/grc:map-controls [source-framework] [control-id] to [target-framework]
Arguments
- source-framework: The framework the control belongs to
- control-id: The specific control ID to map
- target-framework: The framework to map to
Examples
/grc:map-controls nist ac-2 to soc2
/grc:map-controls soc2 CC6.1 to iso27001
/grc:map-controls pci 8.3 to nist
/grc:map-controls hipaa 164.312(a)(1) to nist
/grc:map-controls iso27001 A.8.5 to cmmc
/grc:map-controls cis 5.2 to nist
Behavior
When invoked:
-
Parse the source framework, control ID, and target framework from arguments.
-
Determine the mapping path:
- If source is NIST → direct mapping to target (read
mappings/nist-to-{target}.md) - If target is NIST → reverse lookup in
mappings/nist-to-{source}.md - If neither is NIST → chain through NIST:
a. Map source control → NIST 800-53 (read
mappings/nist-to-{source}.mdreverse) b. Map NIST control(s) → target (readmappings/nist-to-{target}.md) - If source is FedRAMP/FISMA → treat as NIST (same control IDs with parameters)
- If source is NIST → direct mapping to target (read
-
Read the appropriate mapping file(s) from
skills/grc-knowledge/mappings/ -
Read framework reference files as needed for control details.
-
Present the mapping with full context:
- Source control with description
- NIST 800-53 intermediate mapping (if chaining)
- Target control(s) with descriptions
- Coverage assessment: Full, Partial, or Gap
- Notes on nuances (one-to-many, scope differences, intent differences)
-
If no arguments provided, ask the user for source framework, control ID, and target framework.
Output Format
## Control Mapping: [Source Framework] [Control-ID] → [Target Framework]
### Source Control
**[Source-ID]**: [Title]
[Brief description]
### NIST 800-53 Bridge (if chaining)
**[NIST-ID(s)]**: [Title(s)]
### Target Mapping
| Target Control | Title | Coverage | Notes |
|---------------|-------|----------|-------|
| [ID] | [Title] | Full/Partial | [Details] |
### Coverage Assessment
[Explanation of how well the mapping covers the intent of the source control]
### Gaps
[Any aspects of the source control not covered by the target framework]
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 90 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A db5bdf1bc821
map-controls is a command published in the GitHub repository nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc (5 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 736 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 2026-08-31.
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.