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.eval)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-intent.eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-intent.eval/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.eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-intent.eval.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00495 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00247 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
review-intent.eval 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 11d 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 — 72 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Eval: /review-intent
Purpose
Determines the original project intent from documentation and design artifacts, then compares it against the current implementation to identify discrepancies. Good output: a clear statement of intended behavior versus actual behavior, with specific gaps called out.
Fixtures
| Fixture | Purpose |
|---|---|
docs/sample-prd.md |
Intent reference document for comparison |
Test Scenarios
S1: Repo with CLAUDE.md and plugin docs as intent sources
Invocation: /review-intent
Must:
- Reads intent sources (CLAUDE.md, README.md, plugin.json descriptions)
- Reads current implementation (command files, skill files)
- Produces a comparison report in conversation
- Lists at least one area where implementation matches intent (positive finding)
- Lists at least one area where implementation diverges or is unclear
- No files created
Should:
- Notes that
deprecated/commands are not in the active command list (intent vs reality) - Notes if any command in CLAUDE.md's command list is missing from the actual files
- Organizes findings by severity or impact
Must NOT:
- Modify any files
- Fabricate discrepancies that don't exist
S2: With explicit requirements document
Invocation: /review-intent fixtures/docs/sample-prd.md
Must:
- Uses
sample-prd.mdas the primary intent document - Compares PRD requirements against what exists in the current codebase
- Notes that the PRD describes a Slack bot, and the current repo is a Claude plugin marketplace (clear discrepancy — good test of honesty)
Must NOT:
- Pretend the repo matches the PRD when it clearly does not
S3: Read-only behavior
Must:
- Does not create files
- Does not make git commits
Rubric
| Criterion | Pass Threshold |
|---|---|
| Intent sources identified and cited | Required |
| Both matching and diverging areas identified | Required |
| No files created or modified | Required |
| Does not fabricate discrepancies | Required |
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 72 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A f9f62028ca88
review-intent.eval is a command published in the GitHub repository davistroy/claude-marketplace (5 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 495 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 2026-08-31.
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.
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.
security-review
AI-powered security review of the current git diff (or specified paths). Dispatches the security-reviewer agent and prints findings grouped by severity.