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/niels-emmer/myaceWrote 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/niels-emmer/myace/sdd-analyze)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/niels-emmer/myace/sdd-analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/niels-emmer/myace/sdd-analyze/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/niels-emmer/myace/sdd-analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/niels-emmer/myace/sdd-analyze.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 | $0.00025 | $0.00464 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00232 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00093 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
sdd-analyze 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 6d 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
- Read
spec.md,plan.md, andtasks.mdfor the target feature, plusdocs/constitution.mdif it exists. This is a read-only pass — report findings, don't edit any of the three documents yourself. - Check for: requirements with no corresponding task (gaps), tasks with no corresponding requirement (scope creep), the same requirement covered by contradictory tasks (duplication/conflict), vague or placeholder language left unresolved (
TBD,[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]markers that survived pastsdd-clarify), and terminology drift (the same concept named differently across the three documents). - Check the plan and tasks against every constitution principle explicitly. A violation of a stated MUST principle is always a blocking finding — flag it as such even if fixing it means reopening
sdd-plan, rather than letting an inconsistency ride because a task list already exists. - Rate each finding CRITICAL (constitution violation or a gap that would ship broken behavior), HIGH (contradiction or major ambiguity), MEDIUM (drift or minor gap), or LOW (cosmetic/terminology). Cap the report at the findings that actually matter — a 50-item nitpick list buries the three that block implementation.
- For each finding, name the specific documents and sections involved and suggest a concrete fix — don't just flag "inconsistency between plan and tasks" without saying what's inconsistent.
- Produce a summary table: requirement coverage (mapped / gap), finding count by severity, and a clear go/no-go recommendation for
sdd-implement. - If any CRITICAL findings exist, recommend against starting
sdd-implementuntil they're resolved via the relevant upstream command (sdd-specify,sdd-clarify, orsdd-plan) — don't let implementation start against a design known to be broken.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 14 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A ba445a48d160
sdd-analyze is a command published in the GitHub repository niels-emmer/myace (1 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 464 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
pressure
Pressure-test a plan with an agent team.
devkit.github.review-pr
Provides comprehensive GitHub pull request review with code quality, security, and best practices analysis. Use when reviewing a PR before merging.
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
critique
Design lens critique covering visual hierarchy, clarity, and anti-slop patterns — produces a findings table, no code edits unless asked. Use when the user wants a design review, says "what's wrong with this UI", or needs a second opinion before a handoff or presentation.
ccr
CCR (Compressed Context with Retrieval) — recall the full original of context that greatcto compressed/filtered out, by its short id. The retrieval half of the compression layer.
coding-audit
Medical-coding / revenue-cycle compliance audit. Invokes rcm-reviewer to assess autonomous ICD-10-CM / CPT / HCPCS coding for False Claims Act exposure (upcoding/unbundling), NCCI edits + MUEs, medical necessity (LCD/NCD), modifier discipline, HIPAA minimum-necessary — and force a certified-coder (CPC/CCS) sign-off.