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/gosha70/code-copilot-teamWrote 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/gosha70/code-copilot-team/review-submit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/gosha70/code-copilot-team/review-submit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gosha70/code-copilot-team/review-submit/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/gosha70/code-copilot-team/review-submit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gosha70/code-copilot-team/review-submit.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00926 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00370 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00185 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
review-submit 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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Submit work for peer review. Validates clean worktree, initializes or continues the review loop, invokes review-round-runner.sh, and returns the verdict.
Prerequisites
CCT_PEER_REVIEW_ENABLEDmust betrue(set by--peer-reviewlauncher flag)- Working tree must have no uncommitted changes (except
.cct/review state) jqmust be installed
Steps
1. Validate Environment
Check that peer review is enabled:
- If
CCT_PEER_REVIEW_ENABLEDis nottrue, inform the user and stop.
2. Validate Clean Worktree
Run git status --porcelain and check for uncommitted changes (excluding .cct/):
- If dirty, tell the user: "Commit or stash your changes before submitting for review."
- Do not proceed until the worktree is clean.
3. Check for Active Breaker
If .cct/review/breaker-tripped.json exists:
- Read and display the breaker context to the user.
- Tell the user: "A circuit breaker has fired. Run
/review-decide approve|reject|retryto proceed." - Do not invoke the runner. Stop here.
4. Initialize or Continue State
If .cct/review/state.json does not exist, create it:
{
"current_round": 0,
"attempt": 1,
"loop_start": <current-unix-timestamp>,
"feature_id": "<from specs/*/plan.md or ask user>",
"phase": "<plan|build — infer from current agent or ask>",
"subject_provider": "claude",
"peer_provider": "<from CCT_PEER_PROVIDER env or empty for profile default>",
"review_scope": "<from CCT_PEER_REVIEW_SCOPE env or 'both'>",
"target_ref": "<current git branch or HEAD>",
"last_verdict": null,
"findings": {}
}
If state.json already exists, the runner will read it and continue from the current round.
5. Invoke the Runner
Run review-round-runner.sh <project-dir> as a synchronous subprocess.
The runner exits with:
- 0 = PASS — review passed. Read
.cct/review/loop-summary.jsonand inform the user. Proceed to/phase-complete. - 1 = FAIL — review failed. Read
.cct/review/findings-round-N.json(where N is the current round fromstate.json). Present each finding to the user. For blocking findings, address them (fix, dispute, defer, or mark not-applicable), write.cct/review/resolution-round-N.json, commit fixes, then run/review-submitagain. - 2 = BREAKER — circuit breaker tripped. Read
.cct/review/breaker-tripped.jsonand present the context. Tell the user to run/review-decide approve|reject|retry. Stop and wait.
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 · 100 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 8a9f6e600646
review-submit is a command published in the GitHub repository gosha70/code-copilot-team (7 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 926 tokens. 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
plan
Turn an approved spec into an implementation plan an engineer with zero context could execute — with a quality controller that blocks placeholders and hollow tasks.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
test
Run the repository's actual test suite: every ecosystem's canonical runner — NOT run is never green.
review-module.skeleton
Description: This section is populated by Bootstrap with manifest data. Required manifest fields: project.description, stack.primary, project.structure, project.subprojects Example output.
codex-review
Run OpenAI Codex code review on current changes or a specific branch/commit.
Build
Development in one command, ending in a pull request — starts dev, writes the code and (if you opt in) the unit tests, reviews it as an independent reviewer, then runs the project's real format/lint/type-check/build/test commands and finishes with recorded evidence. Asks up front whether to write and run unit tests.…