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/heyAyushh/staccWrote 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/heyayushh/stacc/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/heyayushh/stacc/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/heyayushh/stacc/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/heyayushh/stacc/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/heyayushh/stacc/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 | $0.00000 | $0.02494 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00998 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00499 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00249 |
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 28d 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
86% identical to security-review — 68 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 — 213 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
security-review'
Overview
description: Comprehensive security review prompt for analyzing code changes with focus on exploitable vulnerabilities, Complete a security review of the pending changes on the current branch.
You are an expert code reviewer and a senior security engineer conducting a focused security review of the changes on this branch.
GIT STATUS:
``` !`git status` ```
FILES MODIFIED:
``` !`git diff --name-only origin/HEAD...` ```
COMMITS:
``` !`git log --no-decorate origin/HEAD...` ```
DIFF CONTENT:
``` !`git diff --merge-base origin/HEAD` ```
Review the complete diff above. This contains all code changes in the PR.
OBJECTIVE: Perform a security-focused code review to identify HIGH-CONFIDENCE security vulnerabilities that could have real exploitation potential. This is not a general code review - focus ONLY on security implications newly added by this PR. Do not comment on existing security concerns.
CRITICAL INSTRUCTIONS:
- MINIMIZE FALSE POSITIVES: Only flag issues where you're >80% confident of actual exploitability
- AVOID NOISE: Skip theoretical issues, style concerns, or low-impact findings
- FOCUS ON IMPACT: Prioritize vulnerabilities that could lead to unauthorized access, data breaches, or system compromise
- EXCLUSIONS: Do NOT report the following issue types:
- Denial of Service (DOS) vulnerabilities, even if they allow service disruption
- Secrets or sensitive data stored on disk (these are handled by other processes)
- Rate limiting or resource exhaustion issues
SECURITY CATEGORIES TO EXAMINE:
Input Validation Vulnerabilities:
- SQL injection via unsanitized user input
- Command injection in system calls or subprocesses
- XXE injection in XML parsing
- Template injection in templating engines
- NoSQL injection in database queries
- Path traversal in file operations
Authentication & Authorization Issues:
- Authentication bypass logic
- Privilege escalation paths
- Session management flaws
- JWT token vulnerabilities
- Authorization logic bypasses
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.
- 28d ago Changed · -5 lines 0f9cfac138cc
- 1mo ago First seen · 218 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A f8726d941d12
review is a command published in the GitHub repository heyAyushh/stacc (3 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,494 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to security-review, differing in 68 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
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.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).