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/multi-framework)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/multi-framework"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/multi-framework/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/multi-framework"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/multi-framework.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 | $0.00008 | $0.01530 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00612 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00306 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00153 |
Grade A, and why
multi-framework 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 1mo 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 multi-framework — 2 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 — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/grc:multi-framework
Analyze overlap and gaps across multiple compliance frameworks to identify shared coverage and incremental work.
Usage
/grc:multi-framework [frameworks] [baseline?]
Arguments
- frameworks: Two or more frameworks, comma-separated. Accepts:
fedramp,nist,soc2,iso27001,pci,hipaa,cmmc,cis,cobit,ccm - baseline (optional): For NIST-based frameworks:
low,moderate,high. Defaults tomoderate.
Examples
/grc:multi-framework fedramp,soc2
/grc:multi-framework fedramp,soc2,pci moderate
/grc:multi-framework fedramp,iso27001
/grc:multi-framework soc2,iso27001,pci
/grc:multi-framework fedramp,soc2,iso27001,pci high
/grc:multi-framework cmmc,fedramp
Behavior
When invoked:
-
No redaction reminder needed — this is a pure reference/analysis command using framework knowledge only. No user content is processed.
-
Read the appropriate reference files:
- Framework files for each specified framework from
skills/grc-knowledge/frameworks/ - Mapping files from
skills/grc-knowledge/mappings/for each framework pair (chaining through NIST) skills/grc-knowledge/mappings/cross-framework-matrix.mdfor high-level family mapping
- Framework files for each specified framework from
-
Generate a multi-framework analysis:
a. Coverage Overlap Matrix For each major control domain/family, show which frameworks cover it:
- Full coverage: the framework explicitly addresses this domain
- Partial coverage: some aspects addressed but not all
- Gap: the framework doesn't address this domain
b. Shared Requirements Activities and controls that satisfy multiple frameworks simultaneously:
- Access control reviews → FedRAMP AC-2, SOC 2 CC6.1, ISO A.5.15, PCI 8.6
- Vulnerability scanning → FedRAMP RA-5, SOC 2 CC7.1, ISO A.8.8, PCI 11.3
- Security training → FedRAMP AT-2, SOC 2 CC1.4, ISO 7.2, PCI 12.6
- Incident response → FedRAMP IR-4, SOC 2 CC7.3, ISO A.5.24, PCI 12.10
c. Incremental Work When adding each new framework, what's net-new:
- Start from the framework with the broadest coverage
- For each additional framework, list only the unique requirements
- Prioritize by effort and impact
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 153 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A a3e80a84ea40
multi-framework is a command published in the GitHub repository nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc (5 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 1,530 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to multi-framework, differing in 2 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.
review-policy
Review a policy document for structure, coverage, and language quality.
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.
rgpd
Questões de RGPD e violação de dados — referência, playbook e checklist. GDPR and data-breach matters — reference, playbook and checklist.