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/J-Pster/Psters_AI_WorkflowWrote 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/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/pwf-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/pwf-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/pwf-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/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/pwf-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/pwf-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 | $0.00027 | $0.00547 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00273 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00109 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
pwf-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Step 4 — Review and Validate Changes
Use this command to run a structured multi-agent review after implementation, then fix findings and re-run until the change is ready.
Apply skills/using-psters-workflow/SKILL.md at start.
Target
<review_target> #$ARGUMENTS </review_target>
Determine: PR (number/URL), branch name, or current branch. Fetch diff and file list:
- PR:
gh pr view <number>+gh pr diff <number> - Branch:
git diff main...<branch> --name-only+git diff main...<branch>
Protected Artifacts
Never recommend deleting or ignoring docs/plans/*.md or docs/solutions/*.md. Discard any agent finding that suggests removing these.
Run Review Agents
First inspect which repos/files were changed. Then spawn all applicable review agents in parallel using the Task tool (subagent_type: generalPurpose). For each, tell the subagent to read its agent file and review the provided diff + file list.
Use collision-safe agent naming in prompts: psters-ai-workflow:<category>:<agent-name>.
Use the canonical mapping in assets/review-agent-selection-mapping.md to choose agents based on changed scope.
Always include the baseline reviewers from the mapping.
If reviewer feedback comments are provided as input, also run pr-comment-resolver (agents/workflow/pr-comment-resolver.md) to propose/implement fixes.
If major TypeScript/JS changes are present, include the lint reviewer agent (agents/workflow/lint.md) in the review loop.
Each Task tool call must include the full diff content and changed file list in the prompt.
Synthesize
Merge findings; remove duplicates; prioritize by severity (critical → warning → informational). Present:
- Summary — what changed and scope
- Critical issues — must fix before merge
- Recommendations — should fix
- Informational — optional improvements
Use skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md as the default output template for the final synthesized review.
Next Recommended Commands
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 51 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 6a3bc1b12c32
pwf-review is a command published in the GitHub repository J-Pster/Psters_AI_Workflow (289 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 547 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
improve
Apply systematic improvements to code quality, performance, and maintainability.
spec-review
A command for reviewing an OpenSpec proposal with two separate AI models. OpenSpec is a way to describe planned software changes before implementation.
resolve-pr
Resolve PR review feedback — fetch unresolved threads, triage, dispatch resolver agents, reply + resolve via GraphQL.
impl-review
John Carmack-level implementation review via RepoPrompt or Codex.
spec-completion-review
Spec completion review - verify implementation matches spec.
code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements - dispatches superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to review implementation against plan or requirements before proceeding.