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.
npx agentmods add commands/coleam00/archon/review-docsgit 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/review-docs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/coleam00/archon/review-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/coleam00/archon/review-docs.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00761 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00380 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00152 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
review-docs 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 4d 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 — 35 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Docs Review — Documentation Impact
Find one defect: after this change, someone following the repository's documentation would form a materially wrong expectation or lack a required step. Wrong documentation is worse than missing documentation; unnecessary documentation is maintenance debt. Read-only: never modify files, commit, or post anywhere.
Read $ARTIFACTS_DIR/review/scope.md first, and the project's architecture.md if it has one. Anchor the review on the accepted work order's stated invariants, and scale depth to what the change can destroy: irreversible or destructive paths, lifecycle ownership, persisted contracts and schemas, credentials and auth boundaries, integration boundaries, and concurrency over shared state each get an explicit attempt to refute the invariant they rest on; a prose-only change gets the minimum. In light mode, verify prior findings from this lens first, then examine only the delta.
A finding needs all four
- The changed behavior, config, command, API, or architecture fact, with
file:line. - The exact documentation surface now false — or the public task that cannot be completed from the current docs. Discover what documentation this repository actually ships: README, guides, reference docs, config samples, CLI help, contributor guidance, steering files, and generated docs whose source lives elsewhere. No universal exclusion list — find the authoritative copy before reporting drift.
- The affected reader and the concrete wrong action.
- The smallest correction in the document's existing tone — and when the surface is generated, fix the source and note the regeneration step, never the mirror.
Always flag
A documented statement, option, default, or example made false; removed behavior still advertised; a required migration or destructive step omitted; a public change users cannot discover; stale generated docs whose generation step was missed. When workflows, prompts, skills, or plugins ARE the product, their shipped documentation counts the same as any reference page. Before reporting either kind: verify the existing text is actually contradicted, not merely worded differently than you would word it, and confirm the reader cannot already discover the requirement through existing help, schema, or reference output.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 35 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 10ff0dacee41
review-docs is a command published in the GitHub repository coleam00/Archon (23,366 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 761 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
triage
Classify/label newly opened GitHub issues missing labels.
fix-issues
Diagnose, reproduce, then fix reproducible open GitHub issues in parallel: one clean worktree/issue; symlink build artifacts to avoid rebuilds.
review-prs
Parallel PR triage: decide merge-worthiness, prepare rebased worktrees, fix blockers, return them for human merge.
release
Release all packages at specified version.
cleanup
Autonomous cleanup-loop iteration: discover ONE target → complete execution → verify → report. Runs stateless: derive from current tree; assume prior runs left it consistent.
hello
Say hello.