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-report)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/review-design-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/review-design-report/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-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/review-design-report.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00461 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00230 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
review-design-report 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.
What it actually says
Phase 6: Findings Report
- Findings require exact remediation - "Needs more detail" is not actionable; specify precisely what must be added and where
- Scores must be reproducible - Another reviewer following the same checklist should arrive at the same category counts
- Remediation plans are ordered by dependency - Fix structural gaps before detail gaps; interfaces before implementations
Score
## Score
| Category | Specified | Vague | Missing | N/A |
|----------|-----------|-------|---------|-----|
Hand-Waving: N | Assumed: M | Magic Numbers: P | Escalated: Q
Findings Format
**#N: [Title]**
Loc: [X]
Current: [quote]
Problem: [why insufficient]
Would guess: [decisions]
Required: [exact fix]
Phase 7: Remediation Plan
### P1: Critical (Blocks Implementation)
1. [ ] [addition + acceptance criteria]
### P2: Important
1. [ ] [clarification]
### P3: Minor
1. [ ] [improvement]
### Factcheck Verification
1. [ ] [claim] - [category] - [depth]
### Additions
- [ ] Diagram: [type] showing [what]
- [ ] Table: [topic] specifying [what]
- [ ] Section: [name] covering [what]
<FINAL_EMPHASIS> Every finding must stand alone: location, current state, problem, and required fix — all present, all precise. </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 · 72 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 8a5b2f29050d
review-design-report is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 461 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.