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/assafkip/prd-os/issue-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/assafkip/prd-osWrote 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/assafkip/prd-os/issue-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/assafkip/prd-os/issue-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/assafkip/prd-os/issue-review.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01240 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00620 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00248 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00124 |
Grade A, and why
issue-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Run the required reviews for the active DSSE issue. Execute in order:
-
Run
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" status. Confirm an issue is loaded ANDreceipts.verifiedis set. Ifverifiedis null, stop. Tell the founder to run/issue-verifyfirst. Reviewing unverified code wastes Codex runtime. -
Pull the snapshotted scope. The runner stamped
allowed_filesinto state at load/approve so mid-issue spec edits cannot expand the review surface:ALLOWED=$(python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" allowed-files) ISSUE_ID=$(python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" status | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin).get('issue_id',''))")$ALLOWEDis a JSON array (e.g.["example-project/.q-system/agent-pipeline/schemas/**","example-project/.q-system/scripts/**"]). If empty, stop and tell the founder the spec has no scope. -
Try to claim a "standard" review slot before invoking Codex:
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" record-review standard- Exit 0: slot claimed, proceed to step 4.
- Exit 2: cap reached (default 2 standard rounds). The runner names the cap and the override env. Stop and ask the founder if they want to opt in via
ISSUE_ALLOW_REVIEW_REPEAT=1for a single retry, OR triage and close with the existing review.
-
Invoke
codex:review(Codex native review) againstorigin/main. Build the focus text with the scope filter inline so Codex stays inside the contracted surface:Scope filter: $ALLOWED Limit findings to changes inside these paths. Code outside these paths is out of contract for this issue. If a finding requires touching files outside this list, mark it out-of-scope explicitly and do not propose a patch.Use
--base origin/main --backgroundunless the diff is trivially small (1-2 files). When the command returns, wait for completion viacodex:result/codex:status. Paste the full verdict block to the founder verbatim.Immediately pipe the standard-review findings to disk (compaction hardening: if the conversation compacts after this point, the findings survive because they are on disk, not in narrative memory). Translate Codex's free-form verdict into
[{severity, body, affected_path}]. The writer assigns sequential ids, stampscreated_at, marksout_of_scope=truefor paths outside$ALLOWED, and setsdisposition=pending:echo '<JSON_ARRAY>' | python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_findings.py" \ add "$ISSUE_ID" --source codex-review --allowed-files-json "$ALLOWED"If the standard review returned approve with no findings, skip the writer call for this source. Do this before invoking the adversarial pass in step 6.
-
Try to claim an "adversarial" review slot:
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" record-review adversarial- Exit 0: slot claimed, proceed to step 6.
- Exit 2: cap reached (default 1 adversarial round per slice). Stop. Ask the founder if they want to opt in via
ISSUE_ALLOW_REVIEW_REPEAT=1OR proceed straight to closeout.
-
Invoke
codex:adversarial-reviewagainstorigin/mainwith focus text built from$ALLOWEDplus the contract directive:Scope filter: $ALLOWED Contract slice: this issue ships ONLY the change visible in the diff above. Limit findings to defects inside these paths. Do not raise edge cases that would require new follow-up issues. Do not flag pre-existing patterns in unchanged code. Do not propose architectural rewrites. If you have no defect inside the contract slice, return approve.Same
--base origin/main --backgroundpattern. Wait for completion. Paste verdict verbatim.Immediately pipe the adversarial-review findings to disk (same compaction reason as step 4):
echo '<JSON_ARRAY>' | python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_findings.py" \ add "$ISSUE_ID" --source codex-adversarial --allowed-files-json "$ALLOWED"
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 82 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 595030de1f86
issue-review is a command published in the GitHub repository assafkip/prd-os (10 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,240 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
adopt
Adopts RENATA in an existing codebase — reverse-engineers the technical pattern, feature inventory, as-built specs and a retroactive PRD, confirming every item with you.
plan-phase
Wraps superpowers:writing-plans with RENATA guardrails to produce a method-compliant, ADR-respecting execution plan reviewed by the architect.
screens
Structures product UX screen design — inventory, flow, states, and reusable briefs for external design tools — without generating pixels or UI code.
adr
Formalizes an ADR from a technical decision using the Nygard format and syncs its enforcement block in rules.yaml.
assumption-test
Surfaces the riskiest business assumption behind the PRD and designs the cheapest test to falsify it before building.
hypothesis-check
Confronts each PRD hypothesis with the real measured number, forces an explicit verdict, and triggers a concrete action.