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/carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-claudeWrote 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/carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-claude/apollo-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-claude/apollo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-claude/apollo-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/carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-claude/apollo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-claude/apollo-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 | $0.00000 | $0.01445 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00723 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00289 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
apollo-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 9d 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 — 182 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Apollo Migration Self-Review
Project context: Values in angle brackets below (e.g.
<scheme>,<JIRA_KEY>,<flag-key-enum>) are resolved at runtime — detect them from the project (xcodebuild -list -jsonfor the scheme,git/ghfor repo & owner, the branch name for the Jira key, a codebase search for flag/font files), or ask if they cannot be inferred. This plugin ships no per-project config.
Review the completed migration for $ARGUMENTS against the original investigation and produce a detailed report.
This command can be used in two ways:
- Automatic —
/apollo-migratecalls it at the end of every migration (Step 16) - Manual — Run
/apollo-review <RepoName>independently to review a migration at any time
Output: This command creates a report file at docs/apollo-removal/reports/$ARGUMENTS.md. When called by /apollo-migrate, the report's PR description section is used as the body of the automatically opened PR.
Steps
1. Read the Investigation
Read the investigation file:
docs/apollo-removal/issues/$ARGUMENTS.md
If the investigation file does not exist, inform the user and stop.
2. Read All Changed Files
Use git diff and git status to identify every file that was changed, created, or deleted as part of this migration.
For each file, read its current content to understand what was done.
3. Compare Investigation vs. Execution
Go through every item in the investigation and verify:
- Was each "File to Create" actually created?
- Was each "File to Modify" actually modified?
- Was each "File to Delete" actually deleted?
- Were all consumers updated?
- Were all tests written?
- Does the build succeed?
- Do all tests pass?
4. Check for Regressions
Verify:
- No
import Apolloin any new or modified files - No
Network.sharedreferences in new files - No Apollo types leaked into consumers (fragments, query data types)
- No dead code left behind
- Factory pattern used correctly
- Cache policies preserved from original implementation
- Threading: All completion handlers dispatch to
DispatchQueue.main.async
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 182 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 9f6c68ae68f3
apollo-review is a command published in the GitHub repository carloshpdoc/ios-workflow-claude (7 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,445 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
review
Multi-agent code review with parallel validation.
sdd-explore
Explore and investigate an idea or feature — reads codebase and compares approaches.
gentle-sdd-ff
Fast-forward all SDD planning phases — proposal through tasks.
simplify
The over-engineering review: five tags (delete, stdlib, native, yagni, shrink), a mandatory replacement per finding, and a real null result when there is nothing to cut.
test
Run the repository's actual test suite: every ecosystem's canonical runner — NOT run is never green.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.