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/sawrus/agent-guidesWrote 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/sawrus/agent-guides/feature)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sawrus/agent-guides/feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sawrus/agent-guides/feature/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/sawrus/agent-guides/feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sawrus/agent-guides/feature.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 | $0.00011 | $0.00993 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00397 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00199 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
feature 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 3d 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 — 93 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/feature - Create New Feature
This command executes an SDLC workflow with explicit subagent ownership per step.
Roles
- Primary: @product-owner
- Subagents: @team-lead, @developer, @qa
- Optional subagents: @pm, @analyst, @devops-engineer
- Post-task specialists: @instruction-reviewer, @memory-curator (read-only, see
REVIEW_PIPELINE.md)
RACI-lite
| Step | Responsible | Accountable | Consulted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope definition | @product-owner, @pm | @product-owner | @team-lead, @analyst |
| Technical/design planning | @team-lead, @analyst | @team-lead | @pm, @qa |
| Delivery planning | @pm | @pm | @product-owner, @team-lead |
| Implementation | @developer | @team-lead | @qa, @analyst |
| Verification | @qa | @qa | @developer, @team-lead |
| Deployment (optional) | @devops-engineer | @team-lead | @qa, @developer |
| Final acceptance | @product-owner | @product-owner | @pm, @team-lead, @qa |
Workflow Steps
Step 1 — Scope and Success Criteria
- Owner: @product-owner + @pm
- Inputs: stakeholder request, constraints, context
- Actions: define scope, outcomes, acceptance criteria, non-goals
- Outputs:
docs/<feature_name>/README.md - Done: acceptance criteria are testable and approved for planning
Step 2 — Technical and UX Plan
- Owner: @team-lead + @analyst
- Inputs: approved scope
- Actions: architecture approach, requirements/contract analysis and UX states (when
@analystis involved), risks, milestones, quality gates - Outputs:
implementation_plan.md,analysis_spec.md(optional), optional diagrams - Done: approach is feasible and reviewable
Step 3 — Delivery Plan and Alignment (optional)
- Owner: @pm (skip when no delivery planning is needed)
- Inputs: plan artifacts from Step 2
- Actions: sequence tasks, define handoffs, confirm schedule/risk handling
- Outputs:
delivery_plan.md,risk_register.md - Done: stakeholder confirms plan and priorities
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.
- 3d ago Changed · +17 lines b9d92b42fd91
- 1mo ago First seen · 76 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A c4c4d45de926
feature is a command published in the GitHub repository sawrus/agent-guides (19 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 993 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
spec
Start spec-driven development — write a structured specification before writing code.
to-done
Command "to-done" from eyaltoledano/claude-task-master, covering completing a task, pre-completion checks, execution, post-completion actions and celebration & learning.
estimate-work
Estimate a task or project honestly, by decomposing it, surfacing unknowns, and giving a range not a false point.
fetch-task
Retrieve and contextualize a task from the project backlog - either specified or auto-selected next priority.
gtd-capture
A command for capturing tasks, ideas, and reminders into an inbox before organizing them. GTD, or Getting Things Done, is a task-management method that separates collecting items from deciding what they mean and where they belong.
speckit.plan
Create a plan and store it in plan.md.