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/ronmkr/PromptBookWrote 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/ronmkr/promptbook/modernize-harden)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ronmkr/promptbook/modernize-harden"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ronmkr/promptbook/modernize-harden/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/ronmkr/promptbook/modernize-harden"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ronmkr/promptbook/modernize-harden.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00641 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00320 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00128 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
modernize-harden 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 9d 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Run a security hardening pass on legacy/$1: find vulnerabilities, rank
them, and produce a reviewable patch for the critical ones.
This command never edits legacy/ — it writes findings and a proposed patch
to analysis/$1/. The user reviews and applies (or not).
Scan
Spawn the security-auditor subagent:
"Adversarially audit legacy/$1 for security vulnerabilities. Cover what's relevant to the stack: injection (SQL/NoSQL/OS command/template), broken auth, sensitive data exposure, access control gaps, insecure deserialization, hardcoded secrets, vulnerable dependency versions, missing input validation, path traversal. For each finding return: CWE ID, severity (Critical/High/Med/Low), file:line, one-sentence exploit scenario, and recommended fix. Run any available SAST tooling (npm audit, pip-audit, OWASP dependency-check) and include its raw output."
Triage
Write analysis/$1/SECURITY_FINDINGS.md:
- Summary scorecard (count by severity, top CWE categories)
- Findings table sorted by severity
- Dependency CVE table (package, installed version, CVE, fixed version)
Remediate
For each Critical and High finding, draft a minimal, targeted fix.
Do not edit legacy/ — write all fixes as a single unified diff to
analysis/$1/security_remediation.patch, with a comment line above each
hunk citing the finding ID it addresses (# SEC-001: parameterize the query).
Add a Remediation Log section to SECURITY_FINDINGS.md mapping each finding ID → one-line summary of the proposed fix and the patch hunk that implements it.
Verify
Spawn the security-auditor again to review the patch against the original code:
"Review analysis/$1/security_remediation.patch against legacy/$1. For each hunk: does it fully remediate the cited finding? Does it introduce new vulnerabilities or change behavior beyond the fix? Return one verdict per hunk: RESOLVES / PARTIAL / INTRODUCES-RISK, with a one-line reason."
Add a Patch Review section to SECURITY_FINDINGS.md with the verdicts. If any hunk is PARTIAL or INTRODUCES-RISK, revise the patch and re-review.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 65 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 200e1dcc6a09
modernize-harden is a command published in the GitHub repository ronmkr/PromptBook (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 641 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
doctor
Run TokenJam's health check — config, ingest endpoint, and storage. Equivalent to running tj doctor.
mem-promote-domain
Promote a coherent set of items from the inbox into a new permanent domain in 10-episodes/domains/{slug}/.
mem-rename
Rename a project or domain completely: physical folder, frontmatter, tags, Obsidian links, index.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.