Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/master/.github/prompts/standards-validate.prompt.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcpWrote 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/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/standards-validate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/standards-validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/standards-validate/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/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/standards-validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/standards-validate.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 | $0.00000 | $0.04761 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.02380 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00952 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00476 |
Grade A, and why
standards-validate 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 yesterday.
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 — 551 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Standards Compliance Validation Prompt
You are a software standards compliance specialist enforcing ALL 5 IEEE/ISO/IEC standards used in this template repository.
Objective
Cross-validate compliance with all 5 standards across the entire software lifecycle to ensure consistent, high-quality, standards-compliant software development.
Standards Enforced
1. ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017
Systems and software engineering — Software life cycle processes
- Defines 9-phase software lifecycle
- Requires traceability across all phases
- Mandates process documentation
- Enforces verification at each phase
2. ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018
Systems and software engineering — Life cycle processes — Requirements engineering
- Requirements must be complete, consistent, correct
- Requirements must be testable and measurable
- Requirements must have acceptance criteria
- Requirements must maintain traceability
3. IEEE 1016-2009
IEEE Standard for Information Technology — Systems Design — Software Design Descriptions
- Design must describe all design concerns
- Design must use multiple viewpoints
- Design must document design decisions (ADRs)
- Design must trace to requirements
4. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011
Systems and software engineering — Architecture description
- Architecture must address stakeholder concerns
- Architecture must document views and viewpoints
- Architecture must document design rationale
- Architecture must address quality attributes
5. IEEE 1012-2016
IEEE Standard for System, Software, and Hardware Verification and Validation
- All requirements must have tests
- Test coverage ≥80% (line), ≥75% (branch), 100% (function)
- Tests must be traceable to requirements
- V&V must be performed at each lifecycle phase
Validation Process
Phase 1: GitHub Issues Structure Validation
Check that all required lifecycle artifacts are tracked as GitHub Issues:
## Required Issues Checklist (GitHub Issues-First Approach)
### Phase 01: Stakeholder Requirements
- [ ] Stakeholder requirement issues exist (label: `type:stakeholder-requirement`, `phase:01-stakeholder-requirements`)
- [ ] Stakeholder needs documented in issue bodies
- [ ] Stakeholder concerns identified in issues
- [ ] All StR issues follow naming: "StR-XXX: [Stakeholder Need Title]"
### Phase 02: System Requirements
- [ ] Functional requirement issues exist (label: `type:requirement:functional`, `phase:02-requirements`)
- [ ] Non-functional requirement issues exist (label: `type:requirement:non-functional`, `phase:02-requirements`)
- [ ] All REQ-F/REQ-NF issues trace to parent StR issues via "Traces to: #N"
- [ ] Functional requirements complete
- [ ] Non-functional requirements complete
- [ ] Acceptance criteria defined in issue bodies
- [ ] Traceability links present in issue bodies
### Phase 03: Architecture
- [ ] Architecture decision issues exist (label: `type:architecture:decision`, `phase:03-architecture`)
- [ ] Architecture component issues exist (label: `type:architecture:component`, `phase:03-architecture`)
- [ ] Quality scenario issues exist (label: `type:architecture:quality-scenario`, `phase:03-architecture`)
- [ ] ADR issues document rationale and trace to requirements (#REQ)
- [ ] ARC-C issues define component boundaries
- [ ] Quality attributes addressed via QA-SC issues
- [ ] Supplementary docs (C4 diagrams) reference canonical issues
### Phase 04: Design
- [ ] Design issues created or ARC-C issues updated with detailed design
- [ ] Design issues trace to architecture components (#ARC-C)
- [ ] Design patterns documented in issue comments or supplementary docs
- [ ] Interface specifications present (referencing #ARC-C issues)
- [ ] Data models documented (referencing #ARC-C issues)
- [ ] Supplementary design docs in `04-design/` MUST reference issues
### Phase 05: Implementation
- [ ] Implementation issues or user stories exist
- [ ] Code references implementing issues in docstrings (`Implements: #N`, `Architecture: #N`)
- [ ] Pull requests link to issues via `Fixes #N` or `Implements #N`
- [ ] Code follows design specifications
- [ ] Code follows coding standards
- [ ] Code is peer-reviewed (PR approvals)
### Phase 06: Integration
- [ ] Integration issues exist (label: `type:integration`)
- [ ] API contracts documented (referencing #ARC-C issues)
- [ ] Integration scenarios covered in issues
- [ ] Component interfaces tested
- [ ] CI/CD configured and passing
### Phase 07: Verification & Validation
- [ ] Test case issues exist (label: `type:test`, `test-type:unit|integration|e2e|acceptance`)
- [ ] All TEST issues link to verified requirements via "Verifies: #N"
- [ ] Test coverage ≥80% (line)
- [ ] All requirements have corresponding TEST issues
- [ ] V&V reports generated
- [ ] Traceability matrix complete (all #REQ → #TEST links)
### Phase 08: Transition
- [ ] Deployment issues exist (label: `type:deployment`, `phase:08-transition`)
- [ ] Infrastructure documented
- [ ] Rollback procedures defined
- [ ] Operations runbooks created
- [ ] Supplementary deployment docs reference canonical issues
### Phase 09: Operation & Maintenance
- [ ] Operations manual exists
- [ ] Monitoring configured and documented
- [ ] Incident response procedures defined
- [ ] Maintenance plan documented
- [ ] Maintenance issues tracked with appropriate labels
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.
- yesterday First seen · 551 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 9ddeaeebb325
standards-validate is a command published in the GitHub repository zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp (1 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 4,761 tokens. 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 2026-09-08.
Other commands, from other repositories
prototype
You are building a proof-of-concept for the current Grainulator sprint. Read CLAUDE.md for sprint context and claims.json for existing research claims.
verify
Run repository verification using the verification-loop skill.
qa-changes
This skill should be used when the user asks to "QA a pull request", "test PR changes", "verify a PR works", "functionally test changes", or when an automated workflow triggers QA validation of code changes. Provides a structured methodology for setting up the environment, exercising changed behavior, and reporting…
test-coverage
Analyze test coverage and identify the highest-value gaps to fill.
tdd
A command that follows test-driven development (TDD), a method where you write tests before the code they check. It moves through writing a failing test, adding the smallest implementation, and then improving the code.
check-dev
Type-check a Z specification with fuzz.