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/EZotoff/ez-omo-configWrote 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/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/dual-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/dual-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/dual-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/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/dual-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/dual-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 | $0.00015 | $0.00203 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00102 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00041 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00020 |
Grade A, and why
dual-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 4d 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
Run a two-lane review of the work at hand (document, design, or implementation):
Lane 1 — FUNCTIONAL (oracle): does it do what it claims? Requirements coverage, correctness, edge cases, evidence for every claimed behavior.
Lane 2 — DESIGN (artistry or best available design-oriented agent): is it good? Coherence, ergonomics, maintainability, whether the shape of the solution fits the shape of the problem.
Run the lanes in parallel; each sees the artifact but not the other lane's brief. Then merge: findings from both lanes in one list, tagged by lane; conflicts between the lanes stated explicitly (e.g., functional wants X, design wants not-X) — those conflicts are often the most valuable output; do not resolve them silently.
Boundary: review, not authorization — findings inform the operator's next move; nothing is applied or dispatched without them.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 14 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A e1c54f5b65dd
dual-review is a command published in the GitHub repository EZotoff/ez-omo-config (6 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 203 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 2026-09-06.
Other commands, from other repositories
review
Performs a structured code review on unstaged/staged changes (git diff) or a specified file/scope. Runs consistency checks against project conventions (CLAUDE.md) and outputs findings with severity levels.
design-spec-review
Review a component or screen implementation against its spec doc for alignment on variants, states, accessibility, tokens, and visual fidelity. Distinct from review-hard (general risk) and repo-consistency-sweep (pattern matching). Activates when a slice's declared Scope touches a design-system button, icon, or…
psm
/oh-my-claudecode:psm is a compatibility alias for /oh-my-claudecode:project-session-manager.
sdd-explore
Explore and investigate an idea or feature — reads codebase and compares approaches.
gentle-sdd-ff
Fast-forward all SDD planning phases — proposal through tasks.
/a11y-report
Reporte de conformidad de accesibilidad para stakeholders y legal. Tres formatos: ejecutivo (resumen + score), técnico (detalles completos + código), legal (declaración VPAT/Section 508). Tracking de tendencias. Exportable.