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/nitinjain999/platform-skillsWrote 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/nitinjain999/platform-skills/supply-chain)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/nitinjain999/platform-skills/supply-chain"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nitinjain999/platform-skills/supply-chain/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/nitinjain999/platform-skills/supply-chain"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nitinjain999/platform-skills/supply-chain.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 | $0.00116 | $0.02750 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00058 | $0.01375 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00550 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00275 |
Grade A, and why
supply-chain 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 10d 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 — 256 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Secure the software supply chain — from the build pipeline to running containers.
Interactive Wizard (fires when no arguments are provided)
When invoked with no arguments, ask before proceeding:
Q1 — Mode?
What do you need?
1. audit — review an existing CI/CD pipeline for supply chain security gaps
2. sign — set up keyless image signing with Cosign (Sigstore/Rekor, no key management)
3. sbom — generate and attest an SBOM with Syft
4. scan — add a CVE vulnerability gate with Trivy or Grype
5. enforce — write a Kyverno policy to block unsigned images at admission
6. slsa — generate a SLSA Level 2 provenance workflow
Enter 1–6 or mode name:
Q2 — Context (after mode selected, one at a time):
- audit:
Paste your GitHub Actions workflow file(s) or describe your current CI/CD pipeline: - sign:
Which container registry? (ECR / GHCR / Docker Hub / other): - sbom:
Which image and registry? (e.g. ghcr.io/org/image): - scan:
Which scanner preference? Trivy (recommended) or Grype — or no preference: - enforce:
Which registry or image prefix should the policy cover? (e.g. ghcr.io/myorg/*): - slsa:
Which registry and repo? (e.g. ghcr.io/org/image from github.com/org/repo):
Then proceed into the relevant mode below.
Mode: audit
Review an existing CI/CD pipeline and cluster admission configuration for supply chain security gaps.
Steps:
- Ask for or read: the GitHub Actions workflow file(s), any existing image scanning steps, and any Kyverno/OPA admission policies
- Classify gaps by severity:
- Critical: images pushed without signing, no CVE gate, unsigned images admitted to cluster
- High: SBOM not generated or not attested, severity gate only on CRITICAL (misses HIGH)
- Medium: action versions pinned to tag not SHA, no SLSA provenance
- Output a prioritised gap list:
[CRITICAL] No image signing — any image can be admitted to the cluster [CRITICAL] No CVE severity gate — vulnerable images pass CI [HIGH] No SBOM attestation — cannot audit what is running [MEDIUM] Action versions pinned to tag, not SHA - Recommend the fix order: sign → scan-gate → SBOM → enforce → SLSA
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 256 lines · 116 tokens per session scan A f83d2f977880
supply-chain is a command published in the GitHub repository nitinjain999/platform-skills (41 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 116 tokens to every session and 2,750 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
announce
Draft X/Twitter announcement post (or thread) for the latest plugin release.
ia-verify
Run pre-PR verification chain -- build, types, lint, tests, security scan, diff review.
release
Generate changelog, bump version, and create git tag.
ia-report-bug
Report a bug in the whetstone plugin.
issue-tree
Decompose a business problem into a MECE issue tree.
aw-upgrade
Upgrade gh-aw extension, recompile and validate all workflows, and open a PR with changes.