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/pmo-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/pmo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/pmo-review/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/pmo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc/pmo-review.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 | $0.00049 | $0.00482 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00241 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00096 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
pmo-review 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
GovRAMP PMO Review Command
Purpose
Replicate the GovRAMP PMO quarterly snapshot review process for a control. This simulates what the PMO does every quarter when reviewing submitted evidence.
Process
- Look up the control requirements: Read the NIST 800-53 Rev 5 description and GovRAMP parameters from the Snapshot Matrix
3_Snapshot Criteriasheet (columns H, J, K) - Read ALL evidence artifacts in the control's evidence folder
- Read any relevant SOC 2 Evidence cross-references
- For each lettered sub-part (a, b, c...):
- State the requirement with GovRAMP parameters filled in
- Identify which evidence artifacts address this sub-part
- Assess sufficiency
- Assign verdict: Pass / Pass with Concerns / Fail
- Provide specific feedback on what is missing
- Compare against historical PMO feedback from the Snapshot Matrix (columns R-Z)
- Score maturity 0-5 using the rubric from
audits/narrative-quality-criteria.md
Output Format
## PMO Review: <Control-ID> — <Control Name>
**Overall Verdict**: Pass / Pass with Concerns / Fail
**Maturity Score**: X/5
**Evidence Expiry**: YYYY-MM-DD
### Sub-Part Assessment
#### (a) <requirement summary>
- **Verdict**: Pass with Concerns
- **Evidence**: `<folder>/<file>`
- **Finding**: [what was found]
- **Remediation**: [what to fix]
[repeat for each sub-part]
### Historical PMO Comparison
- **Previous PMO feedback**: [quote from matrix]
- **Delta**: [what changed]
### Recommendations
1. [action items]
Write output to ./output/pmo-reviews/<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 · 55 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A afb7a0dfab35
pmo-review is a command published in the GitHub repository nathanimphilipos/synergos-grc (5 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 482 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.