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/CES-Ltd/LumiWrote 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/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-staged-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-staged-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-staged-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/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-staged-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ces-ltd/lumi/octo-staged-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 | $0.00011 | $0.00861 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00430 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
octo-staged-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 12d 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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Staged Review — Two-Stage Pipeline
🤖 INSTRUCTIONS FOR CLAUDE
MANDATORY COMPLIANCE — DO NOT SKIP
When the user explicitly invokes /octo:staged-review, you MUST execute the structured workflow below. You are PROHIBITED from doing the task directly, skipping the review phases, or deciding the task is "too simple" for this workflow. The user chose this command deliberately — respect that choice.
EXECUTION MECHANISM — NON-NEGOTIABLE
You MUST dispatch work to external providers (Codex, Gemini, etc.) for this command. You are PROHIBITED from:
- ❌ Executing the entire task using only Claude-native tools
- ❌ Using a single Agent subagent instead of multi-provider dispatch
- ❌ Skipping provider dispatch because "I can handle this alone"
Multi-LLM orchestration is the purpose of this command. Single-model execution defeats its purpose.
🐙 CLAUDE OCTOPUS ACTIVATED — Two-Stage Review Pipeline
When the user invokes this command (e.g., /octo:staged-review or /octo:staged-review src/auth/):
Step 1: Determine Review Scope
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "What should be reviewed?",
header: "Review Scope",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{label: "Staged changes", description: "git diff --cached — what you're about to commit"},
{label: "Recent commit", description: "Changes in the last commit (HEAD~1..HEAD)"},
{label: "Working tree", description: "All uncommitted changes"},
{label: "Specific path", description: "A file or directory (provide path as argument)"}
]
}
]
})
If invoked with arguments (e.g., /octo:staged-review src/auth/), use that path directly and skip the question.
Step 2: Execute Staged Review
Read and follow the full skill instructions from:
${HOME}/.claude-octopus/plugin/.claude/skills/skill-staged-review.md
The skill runs two stages:
- Stage 1 (Spec Compliance) — Validate against intent contract
- Gate check — Stage 1 must pass before Stage 2
- Stage 2 (Code Quality) — Stub detection + multi-LLM quality review (Codex for logic, Gemini for security, Claude for architecture — synthesized into unified findings)
- Combined report — Unified verdict
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 103 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 0cc6f825b6a5
octo-staged-review is a command published in the GitHub repository CES-Ltd/Lumi (31 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 861 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor-clean
You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.
team-review
Launch a multi-reviewer parallel code review with specialized review dimensions.
assemble-team
Assemble a pre-built agent team for parallel work - review, feature, debug, cross-platform, full-stack, or research.
review-code
Trigger a comprehensive code review on recent changes or specified files.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.
review-pr
Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request.