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.
npx agentmods add commands/coleam00/archon/review-testsgit 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-tests)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/coleam00/archon/review-tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/coleam00/archon/review-tests.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00778 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00389 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00156 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
review-tests 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 6d 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 — 37 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Review — Regression Protection
Find one defect: the change establishes or alters meaningful behavior, and no test would fail when that behavior regresses in a plausible way. Tests protect outcomes and invariants — count, lines, and coverage percentages are not outcomes. 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
- Behavior or invariant — what the change promises and why it matters.
- Coverage map — the existing tests (any level) that do and do not protect it; inspect assertions, not test titles.
- Plausible regression — a realistic future edit that violates the behavior while every current test still passes.
- Smallest valuable test — setup, action, observable assertion; it fails for that regression, passes for the intended implementation, and survives a behavior-preserving refactor.
Never report "missing test for line X" — name the observable failure that remains unprotected. Before reporting, falsify the gap: search for tests under other names, check whether types or schemas already make the regression impossible, and confirm the path is supported behavior.
Prefer leverage
Prioritize gaps where regression means incorrect user-visible behavior, data loss, failure semantics becoming success, or resume/concurrency/ordering breaks. Test at the lowest stable boundary that proves the behavior — and only at the unit level when it can prove it without mocking the behavior under review away. Check the existing doubles and fixtures for exactly that: a mock that omits the changed behavior makes every test through it blind to the change, which no amount of assertion-reading reveals.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 37 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 45020fd0863c
review-tests is a command published in the GitHub repository coleam00/Archon (23,374 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 778 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
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.
triage
Classify/label newly opened GitHub issues missing labels.
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.