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/stefaniuk/loadoutWrote 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/stefaniuk/loadout/dev.implement-cli-args-parsing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/stefaniuk/loadout/dev.implement-cli-args-parsing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stefaniuk/loadout/dev.implement-cli-args-parsing/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/stefaniuk/loadout/dev.implement-cli-args-parsing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stefaniuk/loadout/dev.implement-cli-args-parsing.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 | $0.00012 | $0.02390 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00956 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00478 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00239 |
Grade A, and why
dev.implement-cli-args-parsing 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 16d 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 — 193 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Input argument: Language (for example Python, TypeScript, Go, Rust).
Goal 🎯
Review every CLI entrypoint and argument parser against the CLI standards below. Report compliance with evidence and fix gaps using the defaults in this prompt and the baseline.
Steps 👣
Step 1: Discover CLI entrypoints
- Use the provided
Languageinput to drive file discovery. - Run
git ls-files '*.<ext>'to enumerate tracked files for the detected language (for example.py,.ts,.tsx,.go,.rs). - Locate CLI entrypoints in each language and runtime, including:
- Conventional entry files (for example
__main__,main,cli,bin/,scripts/). - Package metadata that registers commands (for example
pyproject.toml,setup.cfg,setup.py,package.json,Cargo.toml).
- Conventional entry files (for example
- Record the entrypoint function or module for each CLI.
Step 2: Identify argument parsing logic
- For each CLI, find the argument parsing library (for example flag, cobra, urfave/cli, argparse, click, typer, clap, picocli, commander, yargs).
- Flag manual parsing (
sys.argv,os.Args,process.argv) or ad-hoc split logic that bypasses a parser. - Record where validation and default handling occur.
Step 3: Assess CLI contract baseline compliance
Use it for context and evaluate each CLI against the CLI Contract Baseline:
Step 4: Remediate
- Apply fixes immediately using the defaults in this prompt and the baseline.
- Keep changes small and consistent with existing patterns.
- Where behaviour changes are introduced, add tests using a strict Red → Green → Refactor flow.
Implementation requirements 🛠️
Anti-patterns (flag and fix immediately) 🚫
- Manual
argvparsing that bypasses a dedicated parser. - Abbreviated long flags or prefix matching that can become ambiguous.
- More than two positional arguments without clear documentation and validation.
- Boolean values represented as positional arguments.
- Unknown flags or surplus positional arguments ignored or silently dropped.
- Flag names that are inconsistent across commands for the same concept.
- Help output that omits defaults, environment variable sources, or usage examples.
- Hidden side effects on flag parsing or validation that make flags non-idempotent.
- Interactive prompts triggered by default without a non-interactive equivalent.
- Diagnostics printed to
stdoutor mixed into machine-readable outputs. - Wrapper CLIs that re-implement business logic instead of delegating to shared libraries.
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.
- 16d ago First seen · 193 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 12298164d8ff
dev.implement-cli-args-parsing is a command published in the GitHub repository stefaniuk/loadout (1 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 2,390 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 2026-09-12.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-architecture-scan
Deep architecture scan — recursively analyze an existing codebase into the fingerprint. Resumable; safe to re-run anytime.
sddp-implement-qc-loop
Command description: Run implement and QC in a continuous loop. Argument hint: [optional: feature directory or branch name] Command category: orchestration Prerequisites: spec, plan, tasks.
sddp-plan
Command description: Create an implementation plan from the current feature specification. Argument hint: [optional: planning constraints or focus areas] Command category: feature-delivery Prerequisites: spec.
sddp-prd
Command description: Create or refine the canonical product document. Argument hint: [rough product idea, users, domain, or market opportunity] Command category: project-bootstrap Prerequisites: none.
sddp-qc
Command description: Run quality control against the implemented feature. Argument hint: [optional: testing focus such as unit tests, security audit, requirements sync] Command category: feature-delivery Prerequisites: spec, plan, tasks, implementation:complete.
sddp-specify
Command description: Create a feature specification from a feature description. Argument hint: [feature description] Command category: feature-delivery Prerequisites: project-instructions.