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/bovinphang/frontend-craftWrote 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/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-review/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/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-review.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 | $0.00035 | $0.01405 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00562 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00281 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00140 |
Grade A, and why
fec-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 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 — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Conduct a comprehensive review of the front-end code. Read the project status and selected scope first (diffs only for change review), and then output the findings with evidence; do not write guesses as blocking items. If you need to combine git diff, reduce noise output by severity level (CRITICAL→LOW), and explicitly give Approve/Warning/Block conclusions, you can entrust the fec-code-reviewer subagent to execute; if the changes are mainly .ts / .tsx / .js / .jsx and you need to run typecheck/eslint, PR merge readiness check and Special conclusions on TS/JS idioms can be delegated to fec-typescript-reviewer (reported as typescript-review-*.md). Otherwise, continue to press this command and the fec-code-review Skill process.
Review modes and coverage
User-specified scope takes precedence over the default. Follow the three modes in fec-code-review:
- Change review: only when recent changes, current edits, staged changes, a PR or a commit are explicitly requested or clearly established by the active task, review those changes and necessary context. For local changes, inspect staged and unstaged diffs and relevant untracked project files within the requested scope; a staged-only request reviews only staged changes. If there are no changes, report that there is nothing to review; do not switch to recent commits or expand scope automatically.
- Targeted review: when files or directories are specified, inventory and review existing code in that scope, including unchanged code; no Git diff is required.
- Project review (default): when no scope or change context is specified, or when the entire project is requested, inventory project-owned frontend code, related tests, configuration and dependency declarations, then review in module batches, including unchanged code; no Git diff is required.
Select scope before collecting diffs. A file/directory alone means full review of that scope; a path combined with an explicit change request restricts incremental review to that path. An unqualified invocation defaults to project review even if Git changes exist. At review start, state the selected mode and target scope. When automatically delegating review after edits, pass the current change scope explicitly; do not trigger project review merely because the reviewer was called.
Exclude dependency directories, build outputs, caches, generated files and third-party code by default, and record exclusions. Keep the frontend responsibility boundary; this is not a backend audit. A nonexistent target or a scope with no relevant files must be reported explicitly, not replaced with another scope.
Merge findings with the same root cause across batches. Report review mode, target scope, reviewed files/modules, exclusions, unreviewed files/modules, completion status and verification commands/results. If context or execution limits prevent completion, mark the review partial and list remaining modules; never claim complete project coverage. Reading callers for context or running project-wide lint/typecheck does not count as manual review of those files.
Change reviews retain merge recommendations. Targeted and project reviews use a risk assessment (Low / Medium / High, with blocking findings), not a claim of merge readiness. Preserve severity levels, evidence requirements and report filenames. Output reports only unless repairs are explicitly requested.
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 Changed · +31 lines · +4 tokens per session fa861161c454
- 2mo ago First seen · 66 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 9120330dff1c
fec-review is a command published in the GitHub repository bovinphang/frontend-craft (22 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,405 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
rfc
RFC process for cross-team decisions. Create, track, and close RFCs. Accepted RFCs auto-create ADRs.
release
Release manager for frontend and mobile. Writes App Store notes, user-facing changelog, flags stale docs and landing copy. Actions: notes | changelog | docs | sync.
exception
Signed gate-exception registry — replace ad-hoc --admin / --no-verify bypasses with an auditable, signed, expiring record (who · why · gate · scope · expiry). Create / list / check exceptions.
dead-code-scan
Scan for dead code, unused imports, duplicates, and zombie code across the project.
dotnet-harden
Scan and harden .NET backend code against high-impact anti-patterns such as sync-over-async, lifetime bugs, fat endpoints, and fragile SignalR state.
rust-critique
Deep code critique — read the target Rust code and apply the full review process. Evaluates soundness, ownership, error handling, type design, async correctness, performance, and architecture. Think like a senior Rust engineer giving honest feedback.