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-logging)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/stefaniuk/loadout/dev.implement-logging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stefaniuk/loadout/dev.implement-logging/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-logging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stefaniuk/loadout/dev.implement-logging.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 | $0.00010 | $0.02065 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00826 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00413 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00206 |
Grade A, and why
dev.implement-logging 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 1mo 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 — 145 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 source file for the selected language against the logging standards below. Report compliance with evidence and fix gaps using the defaults in this prompt and the baseline.
Steps 👣
Step 1: Discover language-specific files
- 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). - For each file, search for any diagnostic output pattern:
- Logging imports: language-standard logger, structured logger, or project logger
- Direct stderr writes or console error output
- Print/console output used for diagnostics
- Logger references:
logger,log,_log
- Flag files with diagnostic output that do not import the central logger.
Step 2: Assess logging practices
For every file that uses logging (or should but does not), evaluate compliance against the categories below. Report each finding and remediate inline where feasible.
Step 3: Assess observability baseline compliance
Use it for context and evaluate each runtime that emits structured logs against the Observability Baseline:
Implementation requirements 🛠️
Anti-patterns (flag and fix immediately) 🚫
- Bypassing central logger: direct stdout/stderr writes (for example
print(...),fmt.Fprint(os.Stderr, ...),console.error(...)) for diagnostic output - route through the central logger instead. - Direct logging import: language-standard logger import instead of project factory - use the central logger factory.
- Inline helper functions: local
_log_*()wrappers that write directly to stderr rather than delegating to the central service. - Silent failures: catch-all exception handling without logging (for example
except Exception,catch (...)). - Mixed output channels: some modules using central logger while others bypass it.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 145 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 69de313634e8
dev.implement-logging is a command published in the GitHub repository stefaniuk/loadout (1 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 2,065 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
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.
sddp-amend
Command description: Propagate a bootstrap change across canonical project artifacts and the project plan. Argument hint: [project-level change to propagate across bootstrap artifacts] Command category: project-bootstrap Prerequisites: project-instructions, product-document, technical-context, project-plan.