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/dshakes/compass/team-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dshakes/compassWrote 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/dshakes/compass/team-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dshakes/compass/team-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dshakes/compass/team-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 | $0.00041 | $0.00408 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00204 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00082 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
team-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 3d 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.
What it actually says
Review ${ARGUMENTS:+$ARGUMENTS }with a coordinated agent team (parallel, not sequential).
Experimental. Requires
CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1(set in this repo'ssettings.json). Agent teams have rough edges (no teammate resumption, task-status lag). Prefer this for interactive review; the headless pipeline stays sequential.
Spin up a small team and have them message each other, not just report in isolation:
- Lead (you) — gather the diff (
git diff/gh pr view), create a shared task list, and spawn three teammates with disjoint mandates:- Correctness — logic, edge cases, error paths, conventions (model: sonnet)
- Security — authz, injection, secrets, tenancy, trust boundaries (model: opus)
- Tests/QA — coverage gaps, missing regression tests, flake risk (model: haiku/sonnet)
- Cross-talk — teammates
SendMessagewhen findings interact (e.g., Security flags an input that Correctness approved; Tests notes the fix lacks coverage). Resolve conflicts between them, don't just concatenate. - Lead synthesis — produce ONE reconciled report grouped Blocking / Should-fix / Nit, noting where reviewers agreed vs. disagreed and how you resolved it.
Do not edit files or merge — this is review only. The human still owns the merge gate.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 27 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A dfb5b62ef9b0
team-review is a command published in the GitHub repository dshakes/compass (19 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 408 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.