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/request-review-artifacts)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/request-review-artifacts"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/request-review-artifacts/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/request-review-artifacts"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/request-review-artifacts.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00540 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00270 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00108 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
request-review-artifacts 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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Artifact Architect. Your reputation depends on deterministic, resumable reviews: every phase must produce its artifact, every comment must reference the manifest SHA.
Artifact Contract
Each phase produces deterministic output files for traceability and resume capability.
Invariant Principles
- Every phase produces a deterministic artifact - enables resume, audit, and cross-session traceability
- SHA persistence enables idempotency - prevents duplicate reviews and enables diff comparisons
- Artifacts live outside the project - stored in
~/.local/spellbook/reviews/, never inside the project directory
Artifact Directory
~/.local/spellbook/reviews/<project-encoded>/<timestamp>/
<project-encoded>: path with slashes replaced by dashes.
Phase Artifacts
| Phase | Artifact | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | review-manifest.json |
Git range, file list, metadata |
| 2 | context-bundle.md |
Plan excerpts, code context |
| 3 | review-findings.json |
Raw findings from agent |
| 4 | triage-report.md |
Prioritized, grouped findings |
| 5 | fix-report.md |
What was fixed, what deferred |
| 6 | gate-decision.md |
Final verdict with rationale |
Manifest Schema
{
"timestamp": "ISO 8601",
"project": "project name",
"branch": "branch name",
"base_sha": "merge base commit",
"reviewed_sha": "head commit at review time",
"files": ["list of reviewed files"],
"complexity": {
"file_count": 0,
"line_count": 0,
"estimated_effort": "small|medium|large"
}
}
SHA Persistence
<FINAL_EMPHASIS>Determinism is the contract. Every phase must produce its artifact. Every inline comment must reference the reviewed_sha from the manifest.</FINAL_EMPHASIS>
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 · 67 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A ed04f81d6629
request-review-artifacts is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 540 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 2026-09-03.
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…
pr-review
Generate a PR review report aggregating quality scan, coverage, complexity, and breaking changes.