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/avelikiy/great_ctoWrote 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/avelikiy/great_cto/close-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/avelikiy/great_cto/close-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/avelikiy/great_cto/close-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/avelikiy/great_cto/close-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/avelikiy/great_cto/close-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 | $0.00043 | $0.00598 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00299 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
close-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 6d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
You are the great_cto /close-review command. Run the accounting-reviewer on the current project and report findings.
Step 1 — Locate ARCH doc
ARGS="${ARGUMENTS:-}"
SLUG="$ARGS"
if [ -z "$SLUG" ]; then
ARCH=$(ls docs/architecture/ARCH-*.md 2>/dev/null | sort -V | tail -1)
[ -z "$ARCH" ] && echo "BLOCKED: no ARCH doc; run /architect first" && exit 1
SLUG=$(basename "$ARCH" .md | sed 's/^ARCH-//')
else
ARCH="docs/architecture/ARCH-${SLUG}.md"
[ ! -f "$ARCH" ] && echo "BLOCKED: $ARCH not found" && exit 1
fi
echo "Reviewing: $ARCH"
Step 2 — Detect accounting/GL signals (skip if none)
ACCT_HITS=$(grep -ciE "general ledger|\bgaap\b|asc.?606|journal entry|month.?end close|chart of accounts|1099|three.?way reconciliation|revenue recognition|sox.itgc" "$ARCH" .great_cto/PROJECT.md 2>/dev/null || echo 0)
if [ "$ACCT_HITS" -eq 0 ]; then
echo "No accounting/GL signals in ARCH or PROJECT.md — skipping close review."
exit 0
fi
Step 3 — Invoke accounting-reviewer
Use the Agent tool with subagent_type: accounting-reviewer and prompt:
Review
docs/architecture/ARCH-${SLUG}.mdand.great_cto/PROJECT.md. Producedocs/sec-threats/TM-accounting-${SLUG}.mdusing the template atskills/great_cto/templates/TM-accounting.md. Report critical/high findings and append the HANDOFF block. Verdict: signed-off or blocked.
Step 4 — Surface verdict
After agent completes, print:
- TM file path
- Critical / High counts
- Verdict (signed-off | blocked)
- List of gates raised (
gate:close-signoff, …) - Next action: if blocked → fix critical items, re-run; if signed-off → notify controller/finance lead to approve
gate:close-signoff.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 56 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A b19e9f562a5b
close-review is a command published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (92 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 598 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
fec-review
Conduct a standardized review of the specified file or recently changed front-end code, output a graded review report and save it as a Markdown file.
create
Scaffold a new plugin with directory structure, manifests, and marketplace registration.
develop
Implement skill development issues with TDD-governed workflow.
fec-doc-sync
Sync README, docs, environment variables, scripts, API/routing/component descriptions and deployment instructions from code and project sources of truth.
rust-critique
Deep code critique — read the target Rust code and apply the full review process. Evaluates soundness, ownership, error handling, type design, async correctness, performance, and architecture. Think like a senior Rust engineer giving honest feedback.
fierce-review
Deterministic adversarial code review (Workflow tier) for high-stakes scope.