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 skills/a-lottes/aspark/charternpx skills add a-lottes/aSPARK --skill chartergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/a-lottes/aSPARKWrote 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/skills/a-lottes/aspark/charter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/a-lottes/aspark/charter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/a-lottes/aspark/charter.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 5.1 | $0.00064 | $0.00974 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00487 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
charter scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/charter — The Project Constitution
You are setting the standing context for the whole SPARK loop. The
constitution lives at .spark/constitution.md and is read by every agent
before phase work — so decisions that hold across all features are made once
here, not re-argued in every /story-time.
Input
Optional argument: a principle, constraint, or "set up our ground rules". No argument → offer to create the constitution from scratch or amend the existing one.
Steps
- Delegate to the Facilitator. Invoke the
facilitatoragent with the path.spark/constitution.md, the template from${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/constitution.md, and the user's input verbatim. Say whether this is a first draft or an amendment if you already know; the agent will otherwise detect it from the file's presence. - Relay, don't guess. The agent grounds a draft in the codebase but cannot talk to the user. When it returns questions — the team's priorities, a deliberate quality bar, a contradiction only the user can resolve — put them to the user (AskUserQuestion where the choices are enumerable), then re-invoke the agent with the answers.
- Present the result. Show the user the drafted constitution, separating
what the agent inferred from the project from what still needs their
decision, plus any contradiction it flagged. Keep it short — a constitution
nobody reads is dead weight. Surface the detected type(s), characteristics
and proposed active lenses (e.g.
seo,ux,security) as their own decision, with the evidence the agent found — this is what makes later phases situational (an SEO lens only runs on awebsite, asecuritylens only when the project handles auth or PII), so confirm it consciously with the user rather than letting it ride. Also surface the active-lens load — if 4+ lenses come out active, flag the elevated load so the user sees each phase will carry several lenses (no cap, just visibility). Surface the QA method (§8) as its own explicit decision too, with the evidence the agent found — whether this project has a browser-observable surface, and if not, which method the QA phase performs instead. Never let it ride on the profile or the lens state: a project with nowebsiteand noweb-appis evidence for the question, never the answer to it, so a mis-typed profile can never suppress QA on its own. Leaving it undeclared is a valid answer and the default — QA then behaves exactly as it does today./charteris the only ceremony that may create or amend this declaration. - Iterate. Fold the user's edits back in via the agent until they're satisfied. On an amendment, confirm the Amendments log records the change and its reason.
- Confirm. Remind the user the constitution now binds every phase — the PO scopes within it, the EM plans within it, the Reviewer enforces 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.
- yesterday Changed · +8 lines 5436fb60aea4
- 5d ago First seen · 70 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 7f85428ea209
charter is a skill published in the GitHub repository a-lottes/aSPARK (19 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 974 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
audit-context
Evaluates ambient context artifacts (CLAUDE.md, memory, local skills, settings hooks) for compatibility with swarm governance. Returns a classified report so users can address interference before launching a team.
agentic-workflow-audit
Use when reviewing or auditing an existing agent / LLM-pipeline architecture — e.g. 'is my workflow actually decomposed or secretly a mega-agent?', 'are my task boundaries and success criteria right?' — even without the word 'audit'. | 要檢視/review/稽核既有 agent 或 LLM pipeline 的架構,或問「有沒有拆好」「是不是變成 mega agent」「task…
writing-mode
Writing mode operational spec for the team lead. Returns lead identity, facilitator identity, ownership boundaries, editorial baseline, suggest-members guidance, and phase arc for writing-mode teams.
triage-mode
Triage mode operational spec for the team lead. Returns lead identity, facilitator identity, mode-specific rules, suggest-members guidance, and phase arc for triage teams that diagnose an issue without changing it.
sota-writer
Write structured State-of-the-Art (SOTA) reviews / literature reviews for academic research projects with zero hallucinated citations. Activate this skill whenever the user wants to write, update, or expand a SOTA. Triggers (FR + EN) : "écris un SOTA", "état de l'art sur", "revue de littérature", "mise à jour SOTA"…
citation-receipts
Systematic per-citation verification protocol for academic writing. MUST be used whenever writing content that cites sources — papers, blog posts, SOTAs, or any document making factual claims about external work. Triggers (FR + EN) on any writing task involving references, citations, or bibliographic claims, or when…