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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/askwigconsulting/cohortWrote 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/askwigconsulting/cohort/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/askwigconsulting/cohort/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/askwigconsulting/cohort/code-review/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/askwigconsulting/cohort/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/askwigconsulting/cohort/code-review.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 | $0.00019 | $0.00415 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00166 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00083 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00042 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
Invoke the agent-skills:code-review-and-quality skill.
Review the current changes (staged or recent commits) across all five axes:
- Correctness — Does it match the spec? Edge cases handled? Tests adequate?
- Readability — Clear names? Straightforward logic? Well-organized?
- Architecture — Follows existing patterns? Clean boundaries? Right abstraction level?
- Security — Input validated? Secrets safe? Auth checked? (Use security-and-hardening skill)
- Performance — No N+1 queries? No unbounded ops? (Use performance-optimization skill)
Categorize findings as Critical, Important, or Suggestion. Output a structured review with specific file:line references and fix recommendations.
Verdict block
End your output with a fenced ```verdict block — one overall line plus one
line per axis, each pass|fail with a one-line evidence note:
overall: PASS|FAIL
correctness: pass|fail — one-line evidence
readability: pass|fail — one-line evidence
architecture: pass|fail — one-line evidence
security: pass|fail — one-line evidence
performance: pass|fail — one-line evidence
Rules:
overallisFAILif any axis isfail;PASSonly if all five axes pass.- Emit exactly one line per axis, in the order above, even when an axis has no findings (
pass — no issues found). - This fence must be the last fence in your output — it is the only verdict-shaped text a caller should trust. See the office-guide skill's "Verdict blocks" section for the full trust rule.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 44 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 214eebaf8878
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository askwigconsulting/cohort (2 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 415 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.