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-smell)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-smell"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-smell/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-smell"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-smell.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00192 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00096 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00038 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00019 |
Grade A, and why
fec-smell 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
Use this command for DIAGNOSE ONLY analysis. Do not modify business code.
Workflow
- Discover the requested scope, project/framework facts, and current diff.
- Collect concrete evidence about ownership, duplication, change coupling, data flow, control flow, and public boundaries.
- Match evidence against the 24-smell catalog and run false-positive checks.
- For each finding report:
Location,Evidence,Impact,Smell,Confidence,Candidates,Priority, andFalse-positive check. - LOW-confidence findings remain open questions and must not become automatic edits.
- Save the result to
reports/refactoring/smell-YYYY-MM-DD-HHmmss.md.
Metrics such as LOC or complexity may focus investigation but are not sufficient proof by themselves.
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 · 18 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 775d68eba0f9
fec-smell is a command published in the GitHub repository bovinphang/frontend-craft (21 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 192 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
audit
Audit an existing codebase. Detects stack, finds gaps, creates tasks, generates PROJECT.md.
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.
close-review
Month-end close / GL compliance check — invokes accounting-reviewer to produce TM-accounting-{slug}.md with double-entry integrity, ASC 606 revenue-recognition, period-lock, and SOX ITGC gaps.
voice-compliance
Voice/telephony compliance check — invokes voice-ai-reviewer to produce TM-voice-{slug}.md with TCPA, STIR/SHAKEN, state recording-consent, EU AI Act Art. 50, and synth-voice deepfake-law gaps.
dead-code-scan
Scan for dead code, unused imports, duplicates, and zombie code across the project.
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.