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/cakemail/cakemail-api-documentation-mcpWrote 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/cakemail/cakemail-api-documentation-mcp/review-story)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/cakemail/cakemail-api-documentation-mcp/review-story"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cakemail/cakemail-api-documentation-mcp/review-story/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/cakemail/cakemail-api-documentation-mcp/review-story"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cakemail/cakemail-api-documentation-mcp/review-story.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 | $0.00000 | $0.02299 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01149 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00460 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00230 |
Grade A, and why
review-story 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to review-story — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 321 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/review-story Task
When this command is used, execute the following task:
review-story
Perform a comprehensive test architecture review with quality gate decision. This adaptive, risk-aware review creates both a story update and a detailed gate file.
Inputs
required:
- story_id: '{epic}.{story}' # e.g., "1.3"
- story_path: '{devStoryLocation}/{epic}.{story}.*.md' # Path from core-config.yaml
- story_title: '{title}' # If missing, derive from story file H1
- story_slug: '{slug}' # If missing, derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated)
Prerequisites
- Story status must be "Review"
- Developer has completed all tasks and updated the File List
- All automated tests are passing
Review Process - Adaptive Test Architecture
1. Risk Assessment (Determines Review Depth)
Auto-escalate to deep review when:
- Auth/payment/security files touched
- No tests added to story
- Diff > 500 lines
- Previous gate was FAIL/CONCERNS
- Story has > 5 acceptance criteria
2. Comprehensive Analysis
A. Requirements Traceability
- Map each acceptance criteria to its validating tests (document mapping with Given-When-Then, not test code)
- Identify coverage gaps
- Verify all requirements have corresponding test cases
B. Code Quality Review
- Architecture and design patterns
- Refactoring opportunities (and perform them)
- Code duplication or inefficiencies
- Performance optimizations
- Security vulnerabilities
- Best practices adherence
C. Test Architecture Assessment
- Test coverage adequacy at appropriate levels
- Test level appropriateness (what should be unit vs integration vs e2e)
- Test design quality and maintainability
- Test data management strategy
- Mock/stub usage appropriateness
- Edge case and error scenario coverage
- Test execution time and reliability
D. Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)
- Security: Authentication, authorization, data protection
- Performance: Response times, resource usage
- Reliability: Error handling, recovery mechanisms
- Maintainability: Code clarity, documentation
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 321 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A a897bde2375c
review-story is a command published in the GitHub repository cakemail/cakemail-api-documentation-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 11mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,299 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review-story, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
verify
Run repository verification using the verification-loop skill.
qa-changes
This skill should be used when the user asks to "QA a pull request", "test PR changes", "verify a PR works", "functionally test changes", or when an automated workflow triggers QA validation of code changes. Provides a structured methodology for setting up the environment, exercising changed behavior, and reporting…
test-coverage
Analyze test coverage and identify the highest-value gaps to fill.
tdd
A command that follows test-driven development (TDD), a method where you write tests before the code they check. It moves through writing a failing test, adding the smallest implementation, and then improving the code.
check-dev
Type-check a Z specification with fuzz.
laravel-playwright
E2E Playwright patterns; use the laravel:e2e-playwright skill exactly as written.