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/infraspecdev/tesseractWrote 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/infraspecdev/tesseract/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/infraspecdev/tesseract/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/infraspecdev/tesseract/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/infraspecdev/tesseract/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/infraspecdev/tesseract/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 | $0.00013 | $0.00973 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00389 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00097 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Run a comprehensive code review that covers code correctness, domain-specific checks, agent reviews, and acceptance criteria verification.
Usage
/review [path or scope]
Paths
This command writes the following registry-tracked paths (see shield/schema/output-paths.yaml). All resolve under {review_dir} = {output_dir}/{feature}/reviews/code/{date}{_counter}:
| Registry key | Resolved path |
|---|---|
review_summary |
{review_dir}/summary.md |
review_detailed (per agent) |
{review_dir}/detailed/{agent}.md |
review_summary_html |
{output_dir}/{feature}/outputs/reviews/code/{date}{_counter}/summary.html |
review_detailed_html |
{output_dir}/{feature}/outputs/reviews/code/{date}{_counter}/detailed/{agent}.html |
The applied-fixes log {review_dir}/changes.md is a side-artifact (run history, not a deliverable) and is not in the registry. Source code itself lives outside docs/shield/ and is therefore not covered by an enhanced-* deliverable (unlike PRD/plan reviews).
Resolving the counter
Before writing, list {output_dir}/{feature}/reviews/code/ for entries matching today's ISO date. If {date}/ does not exist, use _counter="". Otherwise, find the highest {date}_<N>/ (with <N> starting at 2 for the second same-day run) and use _counter="_<N+1>". Reviews never overwrite prior runs.
Output Path — MANDATORY
First, find the project root by locating .shield.json (check current directory, then parent directories). Read .shield.json to get output_dir (default: docs/shield). Determine {feature} (current feature directory name, e.g. auth-feature-20260319; if none exists yet, derive from the current branch or story context + -YYYYMMDD). Resolve {date} and {_counter} per the section above.
Write artifacts using the Write tool under {review_dir}:
{review_dir}/
├── summary.md ← {review_summary}
├── changes.md ← applied-fixes log (side-artifact)
└── detailed/
└── <agent>.md ← {review_detailed} (one per dispatched agent)
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 · 78 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A c30321f49b80
review is a command published in the GitHub repository infraspecdev/tesseract (5 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 973 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).