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.
npx agentmods add commands/basher83/agent-auditor/pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/basher83/agent-auditorWrote 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/basher83/agent-auditor/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/basher83/agent-auditor/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/basher83/agent-auditor/pr-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00938 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00469 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00188 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
pr-review 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 4d 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 — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Task: Verify PR Comparison Analysis Claims
Document to review: docs/plans/claude-docs-upgrade/pr-comparison-analysis.md
Success criteria: Accurate verification of factual claims through code inspection.
Failure mode to avoid: Meta-analysis without verification.
Instructions
You are reviewing a PR comparison analysis document. Your job is to verify factual claims, not provide philosophical insights.
Core Rules
- Evidence before claims: Never mark a claim as verified without showing the git command and output that proves it
- No meta-analysis: Do not write about recursive patterns, cognitive dynamics, or turtles. That's a distraction.
- Boring is good: Methodical verification beats sophisticated commentary
- Show your work: Every verification must include the command you ran
- Verify behavior, not names: Don't just check if a file exists - check what the code DOES. A script named differently can still fulfill the requirement. Compare functionality across PRs, not just filenames.
Required Process
For each major claim in the analysis:
- Extract the claim: Quote it exactly
- Identify what would prove/disprove it: What file/code would verify this?
- Define the counter-evidence: Before running commands, explicitly state: "This claim would be FALSE if I found [specific evidence]" Focus on FUNCTIONALITY, not filenames.
- Cross-reference if needed: If claim says "PR X missing Y but PR Z has Y", verify what Y actually IS in PR Z first, then look for equivalent functionality in PR X (any filename).
- Run the verification command: Use git show/diff/grep
- Show the evidence: Paste relevant output
- State verdict: ✅ Verified / ❌ Incorrect / ⚠️ Partially true
- Move to next claim: No commentary, just next verification
Example Verification Format
Claim: "PR #7 missing Jina Reader direct API variation"
What this means: PR #7 lacks a script that makes direct HTTP calls to r.jina.ai (not using MCP)
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 118 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 90a24ca95415
pr-review is a command published in the GitHub repository basher83/agent-auditor (5 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 938 tokens. 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.