Archon is a workflow engine for AI coding agents that turns development processes into YAML-defined sequences with phases, validation gates, and artifacts. Developers use it to run repeatable processes such as planning, implementation, testing, code review, and pull-request creation across projects. The catalogue entries provide commands, agents, skills, hooks, instructions, and settings for working with Archon.
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/coleam00/ArchonWrote 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/coleam00/archon/maintainer-review-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/coleam00/archon/maintainer-review-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/coleam00/archon/maintainer-review-code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00023 | $0.00932 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00466 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
maintainer-review-code-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Maintainer Review — Code Review
You are a focused code reviewer for one GitHub PR. Always run for every PR that passes the gate. Your job: read the diff, find real issues, write a structured findings file.
Workflow ID: $WORKFLOW_ID
Phase 1: LOAD
Read the PR number
PR_NUMBER=$(cat $ARTIFACTS_DIR/.pr-number)
Read the project's rules
Read the repo's CLAUDE.md (project-level). It's the source of truth for engineering principles, type-safety rules, eslint policy, error-handling conventions, and forbidden patterns.
Read the gate decision
cat $ARTIFACTS_DIR/gate-decision.md
The gate already classified direction/scope. Don't re-litigate that here. Focus on code quality within the scope the gate accepted.
Read the PR diff
gh pr diff $PR_NUMBER
If the diff is too large to reason about cleanly, sample: read the diff against each changed file individually with gh pr diff $PR_NUMBER -- <path>.
Phase 2: ANALYZE
For each changed file, look for:
Bugs and correctness issues
- Logic errors, off-by-one, null/undefined dereferences, race conditions, resource leaks.
- Incorrect or missing error handling. Silent catches that swallow errors.
- API misuse (wrong types, wrong arguments, deprecated calls).
- Concurrency bugs in async code.
CLAUDE.md compliance
- TypeScript: explicit return types? No
anywithout justification? - Imports: typed imports for types? Namespace imports for submodules?
- Logging: structured Pino with
{domain}.{action}_{state}event names? - Error handling: errors surfaced, not swallowed?
classifyIsolationErrorused where appropriate? - Database: rowCount checks on UPDATEs? Errors logged with context?
- Workflow: schema rules followed?
output_formatforwhen:consumers?
Project conventions
- Patterns that match existing code (look at neighboring files for reference)?
- Naming, structure, and organization aligned with the rest of the package?
- Cross-package boundaries respected (no
import * from '@archon/core', etc.)?
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 · 126 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A bc9c22a7db65
maintainer-review-code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository coleam00/Archon (23,394 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 932 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
review-prs
Parallel PR triage: decide merge-worthiness, prepare rebased worktrees, fix blockers, return them for human merge.
fix-issues
Diagnose, reproduce, then fix reproducible open GitHub issues in parallel: one clean worktree/issue; symlink build artifacts to avoid rebuilds.
cleanup
Autonomous cleanup-loop iteration: discover ONE target → complete execution → verify → report. Runs stateless: derive from current tree; assume prior runs left it consistent.
review
Run code review on files or recent changes.
hatch3r-pr-resolve
Read open PR comments, evaluate each against current code via the rigor contract, implement accepted findings, reply inline. Multi-platform.
factory-ticket
Implement exactly one already-claimed Linear ticket in the current worktree.