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/hamr0/agentic-toolkitWrote 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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/self-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/self-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/self-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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/self-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/self-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 | $0.00017 | $0.02200 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00880 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00440 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00220 |
Grade A, and why
self-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 14d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to self-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 146 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Answer "verify what you delivered, what did you gloss over, what did I miss?"
about committed work since the last self-review, before /branch-review. The
orchestrator resolves the range and hands off; a spawned worker tries to
break it.
Guardrails
- Spawn a worker, mid tier stated explicitly (omitted inherits the parent's, not the balanced one; not cheapest/fastest either — judgment degrades there; never a vendor model name — this spec names the tier, you translate it to whatever your spawn tool calls its mid tier), and hand it this file's path — a worker has no skill text of its own. No delegation, no sub-spawning — every command the worker cites is one it ran itself.
- Ask and surface only. Never fixes anything. The user picks.
1. Orchestrator — resolve the range, then hand off
Dirty tree first: git status --porcelain prints any line → stop: the
tree is dirty (list the paths), /self-review reviews commits not the working
tree, commit then re-run. No worker spawned.
Hashes or a range given ($ARGUMENTS: one or more hashes, or <a>..<b>)
→ review exactly those commits, nothing else, on any branch: each hash via
git show <sha>, a range via git log <a>..<b> and git diff <a>..<b>.
Validate each hash, and both ends of a range, with
git rev-parse --verify <x>^{commit}; reject anything starting with -.
Hash/range mode never rewrites self-review-sha:.
Neither → on main/master, stop and ask for hashes or a range.
Otherwise the bookmark is one line, self-review-sha:, in /branch-review's
record (/self-review is its only writer):
grep '^self-review-sha:' .factory/remember/last-review.md || grep '^debrief-sha:' .factory/remember/last-review.md
No self-review-sha: line → the old debrief-sha: name, once (that is what
the || does; the new name wins if both exist). Fails either check, starts
with -, or the third exits 0 (an ancestor of main's merge-base is from an
already-merged branch) → no bookmark:
git rev-parse --verify <sha>
git merge-base --is-ancestor <sha> HEAD
git merge-base --is-ancestor <sha> $(git merge-base main HEAD)
Valid (third command exits non-zero) → range <sha>..HEAD. No bookmark →
whole branch, git merge-base main HEAD..HEAD. Range empty → "nothing new
since the last self-review," stop, no worker spawned. Otherwise hand off —
what was done, claims made (works / tested / done), files changed, the
baseline suite totals if known, loose ends only you can know (a peer session
not told, a silent open question, unshipped state) — and spawn one mid-tier
worker.
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.
- 14d ago Changed · +35 lines 573afd1c023f
- 15d ago First seen · 111 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 6563da72d4af
self-review is a command published in the GitHub repository hamr0/agentic-toolkit (22 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 2,200 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to self-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
delegate-review
Run OCR in delegation mode — OCR handles file selection and rules, the host agent performs the actual review.
review.v1
Review code changes: /review [commit|branch|PR].
review-team
Parallel code review with 3 specialist lenses plus the kit-default kit:advisor extra lens. Dispatches the security, architecture, and test-coverage lenses simultaneously, adds the cross-cutting kit:advisor (critique mode), then merges findings.
branch-review
Review a branch before merge.
devs-team
Parallel multi-lens critique of a solution design (the active spec if present, else the decision brief). Dispatches 5 engineering lenses, merges findings, reports a verdict. Report-only, never blocks.
bug-check
Run automated tests and build checks first, then agent code review. For each bug found, propose or document a regression test.