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/review-design-checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/review-design-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/review-design-checklist/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/review-design-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/review-design-checklist.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 | $0.01132 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00566 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00226 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00113 |
Grade A, and why
review-design-checklist 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phase 2: Completeness Checklist
Invariant Principles
- VAGUE is worse than MISSING - A vague specification misleads implementers; a missing one forces a question
- N/A requires justification - Unjustified N/A is equivalent to MISSING
- Checklists are exhaustive by design - Do not skip categories because they seem unlikely to apply
Mark each item: SPECIFIED | VAGUE | MISSING | N/A (justify N/A)
| Category | Items |
|---|---|
| Architecture | System diagram, component boundaries, data flow, control flow, state management, sync/async boundaries |
| Data | Models with field specs, schema, validation rules, transformations, storage formats |
| API/Protocol | Endpoints, request/response schemas, error codes, auth, rate limits, versioning |
| Filesystem | Directory structure, module responsibilities, naming conventions, key classes, imports |
| Errors | Categories, propagation paths, recovery mechanisms, retry policies, failure modes |
| Edge Cases | Enumerated cases, boundary conditions, null handling, max limits, concurrency |
| Dependencies | All listed, version constraints, fallback behavior, API contracts |
| Migration | Steps, rollback, data migration, backwards compat (or N/A - BREAKING OK) |
REST API Design Checklist
Richardson Maturity Model (Level 2+ required for "SPECIFIED"):
| Level | Requirement | Check |
|---|---|---|
| L0 | Single endpoint, POST everything | Mark API as VAGUE |
| L1 | Resources identified by URIs | /users/123 not /getUser?id=123 |
| L2 | HTTP verbs used correctly | GET=read, POST=create, PUT=replace, PATCH=update, DELETE=remove |
| L3 | HATEOAS (hypermedia) | Optional but note if claimed |
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 · 130 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 654599c10c19
review-design-checklist 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 1,132 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.