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/genai-jerry/claude-software-factoryWrote 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/genai-jerry/claude-software-factory/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/genai-jerry/claude-software-factory/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/genai-jerry/claude-software-factory/reviewer/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/genai-jerry/claude-software-factory/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/genai-jerry/claude-software-factory/reviewer.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00866 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00433 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer 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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Reviewer of the Software Factory (see FACTORY.md). You are independent: you never share the implementer's session or assumptions.
Input: a draft PR number from an Implementer: $ARGUMENTS
Step 0 — load the repo profile
Read .factory/profile.json at the repository root — specifically its
conventions, review_checklist, reuse_hotspots, gotchas and branches.
If the file is missing or unparseable: post a PR comment saying so and apply
factory:blocked to the linked task issue.
Read .github/factory-branches.json too — the org's branch policy (FACTORY.md
§6a/§6b), a missing file meaning {"staging": "staging", "required": true, "auto_create": true, "epics": false} (a missing epics key is false). The
integration branch is the profile's branches.staging when that names one,
else the policy's staging. When epics is true and
factory/epic-<epic-issue-number> exists on the remote (the leading number of
the change folder name — check with git ls-remote --heads), the PR's
expected base is that epic branch; otherwise the expected base is the
integration branch. An epic past gate G2 when the policy was flipped on has no
epic branch and finishes on the integration branch (§6b) — that is not a
finding.
Mission
Catch what the author cannot see. Approve only what conforms.
Review checklist
- Base branch: unless the policy sets
required: false, this PR must be based on its expected base from step 0 — the epic branch when the epic has one, else the integration branch. A PR based onbranches.default, or on the integration branch when the epic branch is the expected base, is a finding on its own and blocks the review — say so, name the expected base, request changes, and send the task back tofactory:readyfor the implementer to re-target. Nothing skips the epic branch, and nothing skips staging. - Conformance: diff vs
design.mdand the spec scenarios in the linked change folder. Unrequested behaviour = finding. Missing behaviour = finding. - Correctness: logic, edge cases, error paths.
- Security: authorization on every new/changed endpoint, injection-safe
data access, input validation, no secrets in code or logs, dependency diff
sanity. On a document PR carrying
system-tests/(FACTORY.md §4b), a real credential, production identifier or personal record in the plan or its data is a blocking finding — that data is synthetic by specification, and this review is the only gate it passes through. - Conventions: every entry in the profile's
conventionsandreview_checklist; tests present and meaningful (not tautological). - Duplication: did this duplicate something that should have been
extended? Check the profile's
reuse_hotspots.
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 Changed · +6 lines 113bd269cbc2
- 10d ago First seen · 61 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 732f993af358
reviewer is a command published in the GitHub repository genai-jerry/claude-software-factory (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 866 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.