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/gerard-labs/superpowers-api-platformWrote 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/gerard-labs/superpowers-api-platform/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/gerard-labs/superpowers-api-platform/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gerard-labs/superpowers-api-platform/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/gerard-labs/superpowers-api-platform/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gerard-labs/superpowers-api-platform/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 | $0.00040 | $0.00502 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00201 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00100 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
What it actually says
You are the Review stage coordinator. Inputs:
.claude/last-api-plan.md.claude/last-api-dev-report.md.claude/last-api-test-report.md
Step 1 — Read all state files
The reviewer MUST have full context for an auditable verdict.
Step 2 — Invoke symfony-reviewer via Task
The reviewer MUST:
- Read all 3 state files
- Emit diff classification preamble (Diff type / API Platform area / Operation type / Surface)
- Emit
===EVIDENCE===block (skills dispatched, diff size, commands run, state files read, anti-patterns checklist tally, AppSec bilan from plan) - Apply the 24+ anti-patterns checklist (16 API Platform 4.3 + 8 Symfony 7.4+ + tests + appsec)
- Cap unverified claims (any "I ran X" must have a tool call in this session)
- Detect skill-dispatch theatre (claimed skill dispatches must have actual Task/Skill calls)
- Emit verdict between
===API-REVIEW-BEGIN===/===API-REVIEW-END===. First non-empty line MUST be exactlyVERDICT: APPROVEorVERDICT: REQUEST_CHANGES. - On APPROVE: mandatory
**Out of scope for this review:**section. - On REQUEST_CHANGES: numbered findings (file:line + rule # + change required).
Step 3 — Persist state file
Write .claude/last-api-review.md with the full content between ===API-REVIEW-BEGIN=== and ===API-REVIEW-END=== (exclude markers themselves).
Step 4 — Surface to user
- On APPROVE: notify "Verdict: APPROVE. Diff ready in working tree. Inspect with
git diffor run/api-resource-pipeline//api-resource-shipfor the chained flow." - On REQUEST_CHANGES: surface the numbered findings. User can re-run
/devto address them (or the chain commands do it automatically).
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 · 38 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 69034c73de86
review is a command published in the GitHub repository gerard-labs/superpowers-api-platform (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 502 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.
extend
Capture a mid-PR sub-idea and implement it onto the current open PR's branch — no new branch, no new PR. Preserves Verify → Review → Deliver.
security-review
Depth-first security audit of the current git diff — OWASP Top 10, secret leakage, insecure-by-default APIs, and language-specific foot-guns. Pass a PR number to audit a specific PR's diff.
quality-review
Maintainability and code-quality review via the quality-reviewer agent.
implement
Multi-agent advisory squad workflow for implementing code changes: classify → score risk → select agents → planner → Gate 1 (plan approval) → advisory squad → Gate 2 (Blocker halt) → implementer → consolidator → verdict. Auto-detects depth (quick/normal/deep) from risk + file count; pass --quick or --deep to override.…