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/dzivkovi/agentic-marketingWrote 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/dzivkovi/agentic-marketing/review-tool)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dzivkovi/agentic-marketing/review-tool"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dzivkovi/agentic-marketing/review-tool/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/dzivkovi/agentic-marketing/review-tool"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dzivkovi/agentic-marketing/review-tool.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00664 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00266 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
review-tool 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 — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review a tool against the Agentic Marketing Anatomy
Execute the tool-review procedure at specs/tool-review.md (current version) on the following target:
Target: $ARGUMENTS
If $ARGUMENTS is empty or ambiguous, ask the user which tool they want reviewed and what URL or canonical name identifies it.
Execution
Follow the procedure's 5 legs in order:
- Leg 1 — Internal check (mandatory first)
- Leg 2 — Tool docs (use the procedure's routing heuristics: EXA-first for big vendors, Context7 for libraries, gh for GitHub)
- Leg 3 — Wrapper / runtime search (Leg 3a = vendor-official runtime FIRST, then 3b community search, then 3c read-the-body)
- Leg 4 — Alternatives (skip for single-tool reviews)
- Leg 5 — Synthesis (verdict table per procedure; multi-surface table if vendor spans many surfaces)
Persistence
Save output to work/tool-reviews/<slug>.md using a kebab-case slug derived from the tool name. Include the full verdict table + meta-observations + searches-run audit.
Summary to user
After writing the file, report back concisely (<400 words):
- 3-state verdict (or multi-surface table if applicable) with any modifiers (tier-gated, thin-skin/thick-core, split-endpoint)
- Vendor-official runtime finding (MCP / SDK / full agent product / none)
- Persona-named skill-gap (e.g., "No gap for GTM engineers, Partial for marketing consultants")
- Category-coverage matrix result (if built): per-verb Anatomy / Vendor Companion / AWESOME coverage with any
NorPartialcells named - Per-verb coverage gaps (when matrix used): each gap named by verb, no collapsed
category absent/category presentclaims - Top 3 surprises or gaps in this repo's coverage (Vendor Companion row missing? Awesome-list entry needed? Curation Log entry warranted?)
- Graduation recommendation: is the review ready to move from
work/tool-reviews/toresearch/tool-reviews/(public)? - Telemetry: tool-call count + wall time
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 · 53 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 2b93032047a4
review-tool is a command published in the GitHub repository dzivkovi/agentic-marketing (3 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 664 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
repurpose
Fan a QA'd long-form piece (blog, research, weekly report) down into 6 channel-native formats — X thread, X singles, LinkedIn article, newsletter snippet, and pull-quote cards. Every output is canon-checked and staged for review.
blog-publish
Push a completed blog article to the CMS -- upload images, create CMS item, sync components. Final step in the blog production pipeline.
blog-qa
Run the full quality pipeline on a blog draft. Chains /content-qa + /stop-slop + blog-specific checks. Returns READY or NOT READY. Third step in the blog production pipeline.
community-harvest
Mine community channels (Discord, Slack, Telegram) for recurring questions, pain points, and feature requests. Produces actionable content briefs and documentation gap reports.
lesson-capture
Record structured lessons after significant tasks. Builds a persistent knowledge base that improves future agent performance. Run with an optional summary or use review to read past lessons.
security-audit
Full security scan of the workspace. Checks for credential leaks, file permissions, gitignore coverage, and hardcoded secrets.