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/dhofheinz/open-pluginsWrote 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/dhofheinz/open-plugins/commit-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dhofheinz/open-plugins/commit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dhofheinz/open-plugins/commit-review/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/dhofheinz/open-plugins/commit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dhofheinz/open-plugins/commit-review.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 | $0.00010 | $0.04537 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.01815 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00907 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00454 |
Grade A, and why
commit-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 1mo 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 — 687 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Commit Review - Analyze Changes for Atomic Commits
Review your staged or unstaged changes and receive recommendations on whether to create a single commit or split into multiple atomic commits.
Overview
The /commit-review command provides comprehensive change analysis by orchestrating multiple analytical skills to determine whether your changes should be committed as one atomic commit or split into multiple focused commits.
Skills Orchestrated
This command coordinates:
-
commit-error-handling - Repository state validation
- Operation:
/commit-error-handling diagnose-issues - Ensures repository is ready for analysis
- Operation:
-
commit-analysis - Multi-dimensional change analysis
- Operation:
/commit-analysis analyze - Detects: types, scopes, file changes, atomicity
- Provides: Comprehensive change breakdown
- Operation:
-
atomic-commit - Splitting analysis
- Operations:
/atomic-commit analyze- Determine if should split/atomic-commit group strategy:type- Group files by type/atomic-commit suggest- Generate commit breakdown
- Provides: Detailed splitting recommendations
- Operations:
-
message-generation - Preview commit messages
- Operation:
/message-generation complete - Generates: Suggested messages for each commit group
- Operation:
-
history-analysis (optional) - Project convention awareness
- Operation:
/history-analysis analyze-style - Ensures: Recommendations match project style
- Operation:
Workflow Integration
After /commit-review shows recommendations:
If single commit recommended:
→ Use /commit to create the commit
If split recommended:
→ Use /commit-split for interactive splitting
→ OR use /atomic-commit interactive for granular control
→ OR manually commit each group
For Granular Control
Analyze specific aspects independently:
/commit-analysis detect-type- Just classify change types/commit-analysis assess-atomicity- Just check atomicity/atomic-commit group- Just group files/atomic-commit suggest- Just get commit suggestions
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 687 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 49aa52cff86e
commit-review is a command published in the GitHub repository dhofheinz/open-plugins (9 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 4,537 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
standup
Review my git commits from the past workday and generate a standup summary.
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.
session-report
Capture what changed this session and why, scoped to the current branch. Read by ship verbs when synthesizing the commit message; deleted after a successful commit.
commit
A command that examines staged Git changes and proposes a commit message using the Conventional Commits format, such as feat, fix, or docs. Git is a tool for tracking changes to code.
git-workflow
Run review, tests, and commit steps, then prepare a pull request.
commit
Context-aware Git commit assistant with smart pre-commit checks.