Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc. 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/ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc/main/.claude/commands/fix-pr.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlcWrote 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/ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc/fix-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc/fix-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc/fix-pr/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/ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc/fix-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc/fix-pr.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00710 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00284 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
fix-pr scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 17d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fix all issues on PR #$ARGUMENTS. Follow these steps exactly:
Step 1: Gather PR context
Run these commands to collect all failure information:
# Get PR details
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --repo ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc --json title,headRefName,body,state
# Get CI check status
gh pr checks $ARGUMENTS --repo ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc
# Get review agent findings (latest review)
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --repo ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc --json reviews --jq '.reviews[-1].body'
# Get codecov patch details
gh api repos/ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc/commits/$(gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --repo ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc --json headRefOid --jq '.headRefOid')/check-runs --jq '.check_runs[] | select(.name | contains("codecov")) | {name: .name, conclusion: .conclusion, summary: .output.summary[0:500]}'
# Get CI failure logs if build/test failed
gh pr checks $ARGUMENTS --repo ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc 2>&1 | grep "fail" | head -5
Step 2: Checkout the PR branch
gh pr checkout $ARGUMENTS
Step 3: Analyze and categorize issues
Categorize each issue as:
- CI failure — build error, test failure, lint error, format error
- Review finding (real) — legitimate bug, missing test, security issue
- Review finding (false positive) — matches a pattern in
.ai-sdlc/review-policy.md - Coverage gap — new lines not covered by tests
For false positives: update .ai-sdlc/review-policy.md with more specific calibration instead of fixing non-issues.
Step 4: Fix issues in priority order
- CI failures first — build must pass before anything else
- Coverage gaps — write missing tests
- Real review findings — fix legitimate bugs/issues
- Format/lint — run
pnpm lintandpnpm format:check, fix any issues
Step 5: Verify fixes locally
pnpm build
pnpm test
pnpm lint
pnpm format:check
ALL of these must pass before committing.
Step 6: Commit and push
git add <specific files>
git commit -m "fix: address CI failures and review findings on PR #$ARGUMENTS"
git push
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.
- 17d ago Changed 2f7060d24cb7
- 1mo ago First seen · 80 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A e875dfb937f9
fix-pr is a command published in the GitHub repository ai-sdlc-framework/ai-sdlc (421 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 710 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 commands, from other repositories
discover
Discover runtime AI components and static AI dependencies with AIR Blackbox.
hotfix
Ship a fast branch-based P0 hotfix — diagnose, implement, open a ready-for-review PR, then verify + review after (deferred by design).
bmad-review-edge-case-hunter
Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.
bmad-code-review
Review code changes adversarially using parallel review layers (Blind Hunter, Edge Case Hunter, Acceptance Auditor) with structured triage into actionable categories. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this code".
bmad-review-adversarial-general
Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something.
refactor-clean
Refactor provided code for cleanliness, maintainability, and alignment with SOLID principles and modern best practices — no over-engineering.