outcome

A results-review command that compares what a project promised, what was measured, and what a named person accepted.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review project outcomes, find gaps in evidence or sign-off, and explain what is delivered versus still claimed.
Why use it?
It separates delivered work from unsupported claims and highlights missing measurements or approval. A metric is a measured result; acceptance is a person's agreement that it counts as delivered.

Command for Claude Code

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/suboss87/fdeops/outcome
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/suboss87/FDEOps

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 10 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 252 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00010 $0.00252
Opus 5 $0.00005 $0.00126
Sonnet 5 $0.00002 $0.00050
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00025

Measured 2d ago against content hash 84add7c7c375, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

outcome 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 2d 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.

.claude/commands/outcome.md · 22 lines

What it actually says

Load @fde (skills/fde/SKILL.md). Stage: outcome.

If fde resume shows NO ENGAGEMENT: ask "What should we call this client?" once, then you run fde resume --init. Never tell the human to type the CLI.

Say: "A number nobody signed is claimed, not delivered."

Run fde status (fallback: npx --yes fdeops status). Read the ledger out loud in order: promised → measured → accepted.

Call out gaps: promised but not measured, measured but not accepted, accepted without a named signer. Do not smooth over missing acceptance.

Read references/readout.md and follow it for how to present the ledger and what to offer next.

Do not invent metrics or sign-off. Numbers without a source in .fde/ stay unknown - ask: <question>.

Done when: the human hears the three-beat ledger and agrees what is actually delivered vs still claimed.

Not for a one-line typo in an unbound file. Bound client work, a POC, eval, or go-live stays on @fde.

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 22 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 84add7c7c375

Subscribe to this mod's changes

outcome is a command published in the GitHub repository suboss87/FDEOps (213 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 252 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 2026-08-30.