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-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/request-review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/request-review-plan/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-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/request-review-plan.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00428 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00171 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00086 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00043 |
Grade A, and why
request-review-plan 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.
What it actually says
Phases 1-2: Planning + Context
Invariant Principles
- Git range defines scope - BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA is the single source of truth
- Generated files excluded - Vendor code, lockfiles, auto-generated output (e.g.,
*.min.js,go.sum,package-lock.json) are noise; exclude - Context enables quality - Plan excerpts and dependency context are prerequisites for substantive findings
Phase 1: PLANNING
Input: User request, git state | Output: Review scope definition
- Determine git range (use merge-base:
git merge-base main HEAD→ BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA) - List files to review; exclude generated, vendor, lockfiles
- Identify plan/spec document if available
- Estimate complexity (file count, line count) to calibrate review depth
Exit criteria: Git range defined, file list confirmed
Phase 2: CONTEXT
Input: Phase 1 outputs | Output: Reviewer context bundle
- Extract relevant plan excerpts (what should have been built)
- Gather imports and direct dependencies for changed files
- Capture prior review findings if re-review
- Assemble context bundle for downstream reviewer
Exit criteria: Context bundle ready for dispatch
<FINAL_EMPHASIS> A shallow context produces a shallow review. Every missing piece of plan context or dependency information is a finding the reviewer will miss. Get it right here. </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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 50 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 5d3043813e30
request-review-plan is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 428 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
gh-review-fix-loop
Fix and resolve GitHub PR review threads.
undo-commit
Soft-undo the last commit. Restores its changes as staged, leaves working tree intact. Refuses if HEAD is already pushed to a tracked remote.
session-report
Capture what changed this session and why, scoped to the current branch. Read by ship verbs when synthesizing the commit message; deleted after a successful commit.
validate-pr-description
Use when validating a PR title and description for conventional commit format, issue linking keywords, and template compliance before submission.
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.
hatch3r-pr-resolve
Read open PR comments, evaluate each against current code via the rigor contract, implement accepted findings, reply inline. Multi-platform.