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/davistroy/claude-marketplaceWrote 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/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-intent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-intent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-intent/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/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-intent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-intent.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 | $0.00012 | $0.03934 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.01967 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00787 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00393 |
Grade A, and why
review-intent scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 427 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Intent
Perform a systematic analysis of what this project was originally intended to do versus what it currently does. This command reconstructs the original vision from project artifacts (README, docs, early commits, architecture decisions, specs) and compares it against the actual implementation to surface scope drift, abandoned features, unfinished work, and misaligned implementations. This is a read-only analysis — no files are modified.
Input Validation
Optional Arguments:
<path>- Specific file, directory, or subproject to analyze (default: repository root)--deep- Include git history analysis for intent reconstruction (slower but more thorough)--save- Save the report to a file instead of only displaying in conversation
Argument Detection: Check if the user provided a file path or directory as an argument ($ARGUMENTS). If provided, scope the review to that path only. If not provided, review the entire project from the repository root.
# Examples of argument detection:
/review-intent → Review entire project
/review-intent src/api → Review only src/api directory
/review-intent --deep → Review entire project with git history
/review-intent src/api --deep → Review src/api with git history
/review-intent --save → Review entire project, save report to file
/review-intent src/api --save → Review src/api, save report to file
Validation: Before proceeding, verify:
- This is a code project with sufficient history to infer intent (not an empty repo or single-file script)
- If a specific path was provided, verify it exists and is not empty
- Project has at least one of: README, docs directory, CLAUDE.md, specification files, meaningful commit messages, or architecture decision records
- If no intent artifacts exist, report this early rather than guessing
If the project lacks intent signals:
Unable to determine project intent.
No intent artifacts found. This command requires at least one of:
- README.md or similar documentation
- Specification or requirements documents (PRD, BRD, TDD)
- Architecture decision records (ADRs)
- CLAUDE.md or similar project instructions
- Meaningful commit history (not just "initial commit")
- Issue tracker references or project boards
Suggestion: Create a README describing the project's purpose, then re-run.
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 · 427 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 069f763e0d6e
review-intent is a command published in the GitHub repository davistroy/claude-marketplace (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 3,934 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-04.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.