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/axiomantic/spellbookWrote 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/axiomantic/spellbook/advanced-code-review-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/advanced-code-review-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/advanced-code-review-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/axiomantic/spellbook/advanced-code-review-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/advanced-code-review-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 | $0.00020 | $0.04494 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.02247 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00899 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00449 |
Grade A, and why
advanced-code-review-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 9d 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 — 441 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phase 3: Deep Review
Perform multi-pass code analysis, generate findings with severity classification, and respect previous review context.
Invariant Principles
- Verification before assertion: Never claim an issue exists without evidence from the actual code. Every finding must include concrete evidence.
- Severity accuracy: Match severity to actual impact. A style nit is not HIGH; a security vulnerability is not LOW.
- Multi-pass thoroughness: Each pass has a specific focus. Do not skip passes or combine them. Security issues found in Pass 3 indicate Pass 1 was incomplete.
Posture
A review is a GATE, not a courtesy pass. Be extremely discerning and apply zero tolerance.
- Surface ANY deviation: rule violation, logic bug, design smell, untested behavior, inconsistency — anything off.
- Be adversarial. Verify each finding to filter false positives (that is what Phase 4 is for), but default to flagging when in doubt.
- A review that "found nothing" on a non-trivial diff is a FAILED review, not a clean one. Treat an empty finding list as evidence about the review, not about the code.
Build the failure. Do not just check the author's claim. Both actions cost the same dispatch. Building the failure finds more problems.
- Ask "can I make this fail?" Do not ask "does this pass?" The second question only checks the author's own transcript. The first question does not.
- A check that has never failed is not proven. If nobody has watched a check's failure path fire, the check is a claim, not a mechanism.
- For a claimed clean result — a mutation that should change nothing, a guard that should stay silent — prove the change reached the code under test. A no-op edit looks the same as a correct no-effect. Only the exit status cannot tell them apart.
- Reproduce the defect before you fix it. If you never saw the gap yourself, you are guessing at the gap. A guessed fix cannot be tested.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 441 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 499c952e20af
advanced-code-review-review is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 4,494 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
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.
dream
Overnight autoresearch + maintainer sweep that surfaces a MORNING REPORT — suggested changes, issues raised with fixes, and kept improvements. Shadow-first; never auto-pushes. Runs on-demand or scheduled for off-hours.
code-quality-plan-creator
LSP-powered architectural code quality analysis - works with any executor (loop or swarm).
mr-description-creator
Generate and apply MR/PR description directly via gh or glab CLI (project).
follow-up
Review and act on pending reminders. Bare invocation shows all reminders as an indexed list; cron-fired invocation (/follow-up due ) surfaces the specific reminder and waits for a response; /follow-up review lists stale project follow-up entries for per-item disposition (extend/close/promote/skip). Transport-aware…
unforgit-curate
Review and improve Unforgit memory quality.