receipts

A command for searching the engagement record for dated evidence of an agreement, person, topic, deliverable, or time period.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to find who agreed to something, when they agreed, and where that evidence is stored, or to identify the missing record entry.
Why use it?
It prevents chat memory and assumptions from being treated as proof, and clearly identifies when the record contains no supporting entry.

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/receipts
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/suboss87/FDEOps

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 14 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 255 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 $0.00014 $0.00255
Opus 5 $0.00007 $0.00128
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00051
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00026

Measured 2d ago against content hash 1d1d49689a5a, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

receipts 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/receipts.md · 22 lines

What it actually says

Load @fde (skills/fde/SKILL.md). Situation: when did we agree?

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.

Do not argue from chat memory. Search the record.

Run fde receipts <term> (fallback: npx --yes fdeops receipts <term>). Use the term the human named - topic, person, deliverable, or date window.

Answer with dated receipts: who said it, when, and where it lives in .fde/. No reference file needed unless the hit spans multiple files.

No hit is a gap, not proof. Say so plainly and ask one question that would close the gap.

Do not invent meetings, quotes, or commitments. If the record is silent, the answer is "not in the record yet."

Done when: you have cited dated receipts for the term or named the specific gap to fill.

Not for TypeScript errors, unit tests, refactors, or git commits - those stay in the host agent.

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 · 14 tokens per session scan A 1d1d49689a5a

Subscribe to this mod's changes

receipts is a command published in the GitHub repository suboss87/FDEOps (213 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 255 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.