Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to fotoetienne/gru. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fotoetienne/gru/main/.claude/commands/respond.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fotoetienne/gruWrote 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/fotoetienne/gru/respond)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/fotoetienne/gru/respond"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/fotoetienne/gru/respond/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/fotoetienne/gru/respond"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/fotoetienne/gru/respond.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 | $0.00009 | $0.00354 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00142 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00071 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
respond 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 2mo 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
Respond to all comments and reviews on a GitHub pull request.
Pull Request: $ARGUMENTS
Workflow:
1. Fetch Comments and Reviews
- Use
gh pr view $ARGUMENTSto get PR details - Use
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr#}/commentsto fetch all review comments - Use
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{pr#}/commentsto fetch all issue comments
2. Review All Feedback
- Read through all comments and reviews
- Identify questions, concerns, or suggestions that need responses
- Group related comments together
3. Draft Responses
- For each comment or review, draft a thoughtful response
- Address concerns directly
- Provide clarifications where needed
- Acknowledge suggestions and indicate if/how they'll be addressed
4. Post Responses
- Use
gh pr comment $ARGUMENTS -b "response content"for each response
5. Update Code
- For each response, update the code accordingly
- Commit changes with a descriptive message prefixed with your Minion ID (from the branch name), e.g.
[M042] Address review feedback - Push changes to the branch
6. Post follow-up
- After commiting updates, use
gh pr comment $ARGUMENTS -b "update content"to post a follow-up comment
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 38 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 534e99cd5c38
respond is a command published in the GitHub repository fotoetienne/gru (11 stars, last pushed 27d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 354 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-prs
Parallel PR triage: decide merge-worthiness, prepare rebased worktrees, fix blockers, return them for human merge.
pr
Open a pull request with a description generated from the diff.
ship
Pre-ship pipeline — test, review, then prepare a clean commit.
pr-shepherd
Take every open PR end-to-end — diagnose, fix mechanical failures, stop at the merge gate.
code-review
Run the code-reviewer subagent on the current diff against origin/development (review-only, no edits).
review-changes
Alias for /code-review kept for backwards compatibility with the existing /feature-pipeline workflow.