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-plan-contracts)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/review-plan-contracts"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/review-plan-contracts/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-plan-contracts"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/review-plan-contracts.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 | $0.00013 | $0.00801 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00400 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00160 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
review-plan-contracts 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phase 2: Interface Contract Audit
Invariant Principles
- Missing contract fields are critical defects -- Any interface without fully specified request, response, and error formats will produce incompatible code.
- Shared types must have single source of truth -- Type definitions used across parallel tracks must be defined in one location, not duplicated.
- Ambiguity is worse than absence -- A vaguely specified contract misleads more than a missing one; flag both, distinguish MISSING from VAGUE.
For EACH interface between parallel work:
Interface: [Component A] <-> [Component B]
Developed by: [Agent/Track A] and [Agent/Track B]
Contract location: [section/line or MISSING]
Request format: SPECIFIED / VAGUE / MISSING
Response format: SPECIFIED / VAGUE / MISSING
Error format: SPECIFIED / VAGUE / MISSING
Protocol (method/endpoint/auth): SPECIFIED / VAGUE / MISSING
If ANY MISSING or VAGUE: Flag as CRITICAL.
Required addition: [exact specification needed]
Type/Schema Contracts
For each shared type or schema:
Type: [name]
Used by: [list components]
Defined where: [location or MISSING]
| Field | Type | Required | Default | Validation | Specified |
|-------|------|----------|---------|------------|-----------|
| | | | | | Y/N |
If incomplete: [what must be added]
Event/Message Contracts
For each event or message between components:
Event: [name]
Publisher: [component]
Subscribers: [components]
Schema: SPECIFIED / VAGUE / MISSING
Ordering guarantees: SPECIFIED / MISSING
Delivery guarantees: SPECIFIED / MISSING
File/Resource Contracts
For each shared file, directory, or resource:
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 · 113 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A c11f290b9539
review-plan-contracts is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 801 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.