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-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/review-design-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/review-design-verify/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-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/review-design-verify.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 | $0.00616 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00246 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00123 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00062 |
Grade A, and why
review-design-verify 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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phase 4: Interface Verification
Invariant Principles
- Read source before accepting any interface claim — Assumed behavior from method names is the root cause of fabrication loops
- Every interface must be marked VERIFIED or ASSUMED — No unmarked entries; the distinction drives risk assessment
- Usage examples trump documentation — When docs and actual usage diverge, actual usage is ground truth. If neither exists: examine tests.
Fabrication Anti-Pattern
| Wrong | Right |
|---|---|
| Assume from name | Read docstring, source |
| Code fails -> invent parameter | Find usage examples |
| Keep inventing | Write from VERIFIED behavior |
Verification Table
| Interface | Verified/Assumed | Source Read | Notes |
|---|
Factchecker Escalation
Trigger: security, performance, concurrency, numeric, or external-reference claims
Format: **Escalate:** [claim] | Loc: [X] | Category: [Y] | Depth: SHALLOW/MEDIUM/DEEP
Phase 5: Implementation Simulation
### Component: [name]
**Implement now?** YES/NO
**Questions:** [list]
**Must invent:** [what] - should specify: [why]
**Must guess:** [shape] - should specify: [why]
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 · 69 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 7230722efd64
review-design-verify is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (11 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 616 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
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
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.
implement
Implement in the main agent, with atomic-reviewer gating every checkpoint. For work whose context is already in this conversation, where a fresh subagent would have to re-read what you have already read. Same checkpoints, commit-per-green, and finalize as /subagent-implementation; you write the code.
review-pr
Comprehensive PR review using specialized agents.
review
Run a code review on changed files (or a path you pass).
draft-pr
Draft a pull request title and body to a local file — no push, no GitHub PR.