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.
npx agentmods add commands/vladm3105/aidoc-flow-framework/bug-reportgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vladm3105/aidoc-flow-frameworkWrote 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/vladm3105/aidoc-flow-framework/bug-report)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/vladm3105/aidoc-flow-framework/bug-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/vladm3105/aidoc-flow-framework/bug-report.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00055 | $0.01944 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00972 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00389 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00194 |
Grade A, and why
bug-report 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 3d 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 — 208 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Bug Report
Turn a one-line user complaint into a well-structured GitHub bug-report issue that is prefilled with both title and body, then hand the user a URL to review and submit on github.com. The user types one sentence describing what broke; the LLM does the writing work using the prompt and the current conversation context (what command was running, what error appeared, what files were involved).
Invocation
/aidoc-flow:bug-report <one-sentence description of what's broken>
Examples:
/aidoc-flow:bug-report this feature generate error and does not work as expected
/aidoc-flow:bug-report /aidoc-flow:status crashes on projects without docs/
/aidoc-flow:bug-report doc-brd-autopilot timed out at the audit step
Running /aidoc-flow:bug-report with no text still works — the LLM uses
only the conversation context.
Instructions
-
Capture the user's argument — every word after
/aidoc-flow:bug-reportis the user's report. Store it asuser_complaint. If empty, setuser_complaint = "(none provided — using conversation context only)". -
Gather the environment stamp — read:
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/VERSION→plugin_version${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/FRAMEWORK_SPEC_VERSION→framework_specuname -srm→os_archclaude --version→claude_version(fall back to(unknown)if unavailable)
-
Read the conversation context — review the recent messages and tool calls in the current chat. Look for:
- The most recent error message, traceback, or failure output (if any).
- The most recent command or skill the user was running when the
problem appeared (e.g.
/aidoc-flow:status,doc-brd-autopilot,gh pr create). - Files referenced in the failure (paths from tool calls, error locations).
- What the user appeared to expect vs what happened, if it can be inferred from the surrounding conversation.
If the conversation is fresh and contains no failure context, do not fabricate one — leave
Steps to reproduceandActual behaviouras placeholders the user fills in.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 208 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 34bdaabd22c9
bug-report is a command published in the GitHub repository vladm3105/aidoc-flow-framework (17 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 1,944 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
create-command
Create a new obsidian-second-brain command via interview - zero markdown editing required.
obsidian-health
Run a vault health check - grouped by severity, detects contradictions, concept gaps, stale claims, and structural issues.
obsidian-visualize
Generate a visual canvas map of your vault - see the shape of your second brain and how knowledge connects.
obsidian-architect
Scan a codebase and write a maintained set of architecture notes into the vault - overview, per-module notes, key decisions. Re-run to refresh without clobbering your edits.
obsidian-export
Export a clean structured snapshot of the vault that any agent or tool can consume - flat JSON, markdown index, or an OKF (Open Knowledge Format) bundle.
obsidian-retrieval-eval
Measure how well vault search finds the right note for a natural-language question - recall@k and MRR, with the concrete failures.