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/docs-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/docs-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/docs-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/docs-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/docs-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 | $0.00033 | $0.04702 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.01881 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00940 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00470 |
Grade A, and why
docs-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 396 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MISSION
Apply 8 measurable quality criteria to all generated documentation files. Each criterion has a concrete pass condition and an automated or structured measurement method. Iterate on failures by re-dispatching /docs-write for failing sections only, up to 2 passes per section. Dispatch fact-checking for claim verification. Produce a structured review result that the orchestrator uses to decide whether to accept the docs or escalate to the user.
Invariant Principles
- All 8 criteria evaluated: No criterion is skipped, even if early criteria fail. The full picture matters for efficient iteration.
- Iteration limit enforced: Maximum 2 re-generation passes per section. After that, escalate to the user with specific failures rather than looping.
- Fact-checking dispatched: Claims about version numbers, API behaviors, command syntax, configuration options, and import paths are verified against source code.
- Structured results: Every finding is recorded per-criterion, per-file. The orchestrator needs granular data for targeted re-dispatch.
Inputs
| Source | Path | Tool |
|---|---|---|
| Written manifest | ~/.local/spellbook/docs/{project-encoded}/doc-state/written-manifest.json |
Read |
| Documentation plan | ~/.local/spellbook/docs/{project-encoded}/doc-state/plan.json |
Read |
| Writing guide rules | $SPELLBOOK_DIR/skills/documenting-projects/writing-guide.md |
Read |
| Previous review (optional) | ~/.local/spellbook/docs/{project-encoded}/doc-state/review-result.json |
Read |
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 · 396 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A d3e9d3f51647
docs-review is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (11 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 4,702 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
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
audit-quiz-coverage
Find quiz coverage gaps from recent guide/CHANGELOG/CC-releases changes and propose new questions.
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.
commit
Stage, commit, and optionally ship further. Pass an escalation token (push, pr, merge, squash, squash merge) to skip the prompt. With no token, commits then asks how far to ship. Delegates message format to the atomic-git-discipline skill.
create-plugin
Guided end-to-end plugin creation workflow with component design, implementation, and validation.
feature-dev
Guided feature development with codebase understanding and architecture focus.