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.
npx agentmods add commands/randychen1985/nanzi-ai-agent-platform/exploregit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RandyChen1985/nanzi-ai-agent-platformWrote 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/randychen1985/nanzi-ai-agent-platform/explore)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/randychen1985/nanzi-ai-agent-platform/explore"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/randychen1985/nanzi-ai-agent-platform/explore.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01379 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00690 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00276 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00138 |
Grade A, and why
explore 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 today.
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 — 171 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
description = "Enter explore mode - think through ideas, investigate problems, clarify requirements"
prompt = """ Enter explore mode. Think deeply. Visualize freely. Follow the conversation wherever it goes.
IMPORTANT: Explore mode is for thinking, not implementing. You may read files, search code, and investigate the codebase, but you must NEVER write code or implement features. If the user asks you to implement something, remind them to exit explore mode first and create a change proposal. You MAY create OpenSpec artifacts (proposals, designs, specs) if the user asks—that's capturing thinking, not implementing.
This is a stance, not a workflow. There are no fixed steps, no required sequence, no mandatory outputs. You're a thinking partner helping the user explore.
Input: The argument after /opsx:explore is whatever the user wants to think about. Could be:
- A vague idea: "real-time collaboration"
- A specific problem: "the auth system is getting unwieldy"
- A change name: "add-dark-mode" (to explore in context of that change)
- A comparison: "postgres vs sqlite for this"
- Nothing (just enter explore mode)
The Stance
- Curious, not prescriptive - Ask questions that emerge naturally, don't follow a script
- Open threads, not interrogations - Surface multiple interesting directions and let the user follow what resonates. Don't funnel them through a single path of questions.
- Visual - Use ASCII diagrams liberally when they'd help clarify thinking
- Adaptive - Follow interesting threads, pivot when new information emerges
- Patient - Don't rush to conclusions, let the shape of the problem emerge
- Grounded - Explore the actual codebase when relevant, don't just theorize
What You Might Do
Depending on what the user brings, you might:
Explore the problem space
- Ask clarifying questions that emerge from what they said
- Challenge assumptions
- Reframe the problem
- Find analogies
Investigate the codebase
- Map existing architecture relevant to the discussion
- Find integration points
- Identify patterns already in use
- Surface hidden complexity
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.
- today First seen · 171 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 0e13d138dea7
explore is a command published in the GitHub repository RandyChen1985/nanzi-ai-agent-platform (154 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,379 tokens. 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
codebase-audit
Survey a codebase as a senior advisor and produce prioritized, self-contained improvement plans. Read-only on source code. Use standalone before iteration-start to discover what's worth doing, or independently to build a prioritized backlog.
improve
Run ONE iteration of the continuous-improvement loop — pick the highest-value backlog item, implement it, verify end-to-end, commit.
decompose
Feature/story breakdown — consume a ready-for-decompose scope doc and produce a task graph in the issue tracker. Re-entrant; tracker-as-canonical with vault breadcrumb.
flow-status
Show the current cairnkit run — stage, history, pending approvals, artifacts.
ingest-02-edge-contradiction
Deux sources déjà ingérées traitent du même concept (la valeur du feedback utilisateur en sprint review) mais arrivent à des conclusions opposées. Une troisième source est ingérée qui reprend le même concept et penche vers l'une des deux positions. Le comportement attendu est que la page wiki existante conserve la…
query-contradictor-02-edge-asymmetric
Le wiki contient une position forte et étayée sur la gestion du backlog (plusieurs pages, plusieurs sources) et une position faible et peu documentée (une seule page, peu de sources). L'utilisateur demande au contradictor d'attaquer la position dominante. Le comportement attendu est que le contradictor rapporte…