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/srnichols/plan-forgeWrote 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/srnichols/plan-forge/new-bicep-module)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/srnichols/plan-forge/new-bicep-module"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/srnichols/plan-forge/new-bicep-module/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/srnichols/plan-forge/new-bicep-module"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/srnichols/plan-forge/new-bicep-module.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 | $0.00605 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00302 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00121 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
new-bicep-module 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Create New Bicep Module
Scaffold a reusable Bicep module following CAF naming, security defaults, and project conventions.
Required Information
Before generating, ask for:
- Module purpose — what Azure resource(s) does this module deploy?
- Scope — resource group / subscription / management group?
- Parameters — what can callers configure?
- Is this production-bound? — enables stricter security defaults
Module Template
// modules/{moduleName}.bicep
// ─── Parameters ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
@description('The environment name, used for naming and tagging.')
@allowed(['dev', 'test', 'staging', 'prod'])
param environmentName string
@description('Short workload name used in resource naming (2–8 chars).')
@minLength(2)
@maxLength(8)
param workloadName string
@description('Azure region for this resource.')
param location string = resourceGroup().location
// ─── Variables ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
var uniqueSuffix = uniqueString(resourceGroup().id)
var resourceName = '{abbreviation}-${workloadName}-${environmentName}-${uniqueSuffix}'
var commonTags = {
Environment : environmentName
Workload : workloadName
ManagedBy : 'Bicep'
Module : '{moduleName}'
}
// ─── Resources ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
// TODO: add resource definition
// ─── Outputs ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
@description('The resource ID of the deployed resource.')
output resourceId string = {resource}.id
@description('The name of the deployed resource.')
output resourceName string = {resource}.name
Rules
- ALL parameters have
@descriptiondecorators @secure()on any parameter containing a secret — no default other than''locationis always a parameter — never hardcoded- All resources get
tags: commonTags(orunion(commonTags, extraTags)) - Naming uses
uniqueString(resourceGroup().id)prefix for globally unique resources - Outputs use resource property references — never manually constructed values
@secure()on outputs containing keys, secrets, or connection strings- Use
existingkeyword for cross-module references — not string outputs from parents - Secure defaults:
allowBlobPublicAccess: false,minimumTlsVersion: 'TLS1_2'
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 · 75 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A f329b7f6e9e6
new-bicep-module is a command published in the GitHub repository srnichols/plan-forge (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 605 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 2026-09-08.
Other commands, from other repositories
gentle-sdd-ff
Fast-forward all SDD planning phases — proposal through tasks.
sdd-explore
Explore and investigate an idea or feature — reads codebase and compares approaches.
modernization-flow
Workflow for converting, modernizing, upgrading, or re-architecting code (e.g. C++→Java, monolith→microservices), etc.
ui-aqa-flow-test-report-analysis
Phase 7 Test Report Analysis of ui-aqa-flow.
modernization-flow-review
Phase 7 Review of modernization-flow.
init-workspace-flow-questions
Phase 8 Questions of init-workspace-flow.