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/dork-labs/dorkos/reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dork-labs/dorkosWrote 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/dork-labs/dorkos/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dork-labs/dorkos/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dork-labs/dorkos/review.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01876 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00938 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00375 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00188 |
Grade A, and why
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 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 — 212 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review ADRs for Lifecycle Progression
Argument: $ARGUMENTS
Purpose
Move ADRs past the "proposed" stage. ADRs are born proposed (or accepted, via /adr:create and /adr:from-spec); this command handles the rest of the lifecycle: proposed → accepted | deprecated | superseded | archived.
This command never re-examines an accepted ADR — that is /adr:audit's job (accepted ADRs
rot silently as the codebase moves on; the audit re-verifies them against code and stamps
lastVerified).
When to run:
- After completing a spec implementation
- When the proposed ADR count exceeds 50
- Periodically (monthly) for general maintenance
- When a SessionStart hook suggests it
Steps
Step 1: Determine Scope
Parse $ARGUMENTS to decide what to review:
| Argument | Scope |
|---|---|
--all or empty |
All proposed ADRs |
A spec slug (e.g., relay-core-library) |
Only ADRs linked to that spec |
An ADR number (e.g., 43 or 0043) |
Single ADR |
Step 2: Load Context
- Read
decisions/manifest.json— filter for proposed ADRs matching scope - Read
specs/manifest.json— get spec statuses for cross-referencing - If reviewing all, group proposed ADRs by
specSlug
Step 3: Evaluate Each ADR (or Group)
For each proposed ADR, apply these checks in order (first match wins):
Check A: Is the linked spec implemented?
If the ADR has a specSlug and that spec's status is implemented or completed in the spec manifest:
- Verify the decision is reflected in code — do a quick grep/glob for the pattern or technology described in the ADR
- If confirmed: Recommend → accepted
- If the code diverged from the decision: Recommend → deprecated (note what actually happened)
Check B: Is the linked spec abandoned?
If the spec is still ideation and was created more than 30 days ago, OR the spec slug doesn't exist in the spec manifest:
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 · 212 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 766353ac12a3
review is a command published in the GitHub repository dork-labs/dorkos (9 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,876 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
modernize-brief
Generate a phased Modernization Brief — the approved plan that transformation agents will execute against.
modernize-transform
Transform one legacy module to the target stack — idiomatic rewrite with behavior-equivalence tests.
review-pr
Comprehensive PR review using specialized agents.
asana-setup
Set up the Asana V2 MCP server connection (one-time OAuth app + claude mcp add).
clean_gone
Cleans up all git branches marked as [gone] (branches that have been deleted on the remote but still exist locally), including removing associated worktrees.
revise-claude-md
Update CLAUDE.md with learnings from this session.